Too harsh punishment on South
Uploaded by WelshHanny on May 15, 2002
Why should the south be punished so harshly for doing what they felt was right and necessary? I, Senate of Pennsylvania, believe the Confederacy should not be punished for seceding. Granted, there were those who encouraged the rebellion against the nation, that should be punished more. However, there are the innocent by-standers, who were residents of the South, who were not necessarily in favor of many principles of the Confederacy. So, in order to establish a more unified country, I propose the following satisfy all parties.
The main issue here is how to bring the seceded states back into the Union. Many believe that the states should be quickly forgiven and allowed back into the Union immediately. The problem with this is that if the states that do not want to be part of the Union again have a higher chance of uprising and of causing war again. I do agree that this matter needs to be resolved quickly, but that the troubles at hand cannot be taken lightly. On the other hand, many believe that the states should be punished strictly. The problem with this resolution is again, that there is another reason for retaliation. So in order to assure a perfect union there is going to have to be a middle ground.
So I believe that in order to live in peace some things must be done before anything occurs. It is necessary that all leaders of the Confederacy are turned in, leaving a generally un-biased generation. From there, it would be necessary for at least 75% of a state to be agreed to re-joining the Union. They would then be admitted and elect all officials. The Confederate leaders however, would be made to take an oath. In which they would swear to uphold the constitution. I believe that once everything is done, the Civil War will be something of the past. And there will once again be a united country.