# Think Tank > History >  Did the Confederacy really secede over "states rights"?

## Christian Liberty

I wish it was true that the Confederacy had seceded over "states rights" and not over slavery.  I can't stand Lincoln, pretty much any of his policies, his idea that states could be forced to stay in the Union, and the expanded Federal government that came about as a result.

Rothbard once said that one of the two wars in American history was "the war for southern independence."

After looking at the real facts, I believe he is wrong.  The Civil War was a war of evil against evil, like almost every other war.

Now, I do not deny that the South defended itself from invasion, that they had the constitutional right to do so (though THEY, interestingly enough, didn't really think they did as such) and that the North was wrong to invade the south.  But I also do not, cannot; deny that the south seceded to protect slavery as an institution.

South Carolina's declaration of secession:
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/south...eclaration.asp

Even though they do mention "states rights" at the beginning, they later make it clear that A: They were specifically talking about states rights regarding slavery and B: Their belief was entirely one sided.  They didn't support the States Rights of the northern states:





> The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.



Mississippi's declaration is the same:

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/missi...eclaration.asp

Starts with this:




> In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
> 
> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.


I haven't read all of them that.  I read a few in my college US history class, and I looked up a few other random ones on my own just to make sure they weren't cherry picking the data.

The only one that I saw that didn't specifically mention slavery was Missouri which, oddly enough, also didn't actually secede.

I know Rothbard was both brilliant and a revisionist on this issue.  I am curious how he dealt with these documents, as well as anyone else who still thinks the South seceded because of "states rights."  Because, much as I want to support secession on principle (And I do), I don't see the evidence.

----------


## fisharmor

Lee was not a particular fan of slavery, and without him, the whole affair would have fallen pretty flat on its face.


FF, are you aware that today, this very day, in the United States, slavery is 100% legal?

----------


## brushfire

^ this is true

Neither side really gave a sh!t about slavery - at least not to the extent that they were willing to go to kill over it.

----------


## Ronin Truth

https://www.google.com/search?q=why+...gbv=2&oq=&gs_l=

----------


## jmdrake

> Lee was not a particular fan of slavery, and without him, the whole affair would have fallen pretty flat on its face.


1) Lee didn't want Virginia to secede either.  http://civilwardailygazette.com/2011...on-to-a-point/

_As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and her institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution._

2) Lee declined to free his father in laws slaves even though they were to be freed upon his father in law's death according to the will.

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/...ly-Slaves.html




> FF, are you aware that today, this very day, in the United States, slavery is 100% legal?


He's probably not aware of that because it's not true.

----------


## fisharmor

> He's probably not aware of that because it's not true.


What makes you think slavery is illegal?
Go ahead and provide a quote please.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Lee was not a particular fan of slavery, and without him, the whole affair would have fallen pretty flat on its face.
> 
> 
> FF, are you aware that today, this very day, in the United States, slavery is 100% legal?





> 1) Lee didn't want Virginia to secede either.  http://civilwardailygazette.com/2011...on-to-a-point/
> 
> _As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and her institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution._
> 
> 2) Lee declined to free his father in laws slaves even though they were to be freed upon his father in law's death according to the will.
> 
> http://americancivilwar.com/authors/...ly-Slaves.html
> 
> 
> ...


I understand what fisharmor is talking about, that we're all pretty much slaves to the State.  We could debate to what extent, but not the reality of the situation.

Look, I'm not going for the textbook "bash the south and exalt the north" position.  I think both sides were evil, and I still think the North was more so, after all they were willing to invade another country to stop secession, yet they couldn't even be bothered to repel the fugitive slave act.  I'm not a "Northern supporter" at all.

And I agree that Lee was mainly concerned about defending Virginia.  But Lee's reasons for joining the South and the South's reasons for seceding aren't the same thing.

Fish, what's your opinion on the documents I posted?

----------


## jmdrake

You've discovered what I ran across years ago.  Yes the south seceded in large part because they wanted to "right" to own slaves.  It gets worse.  Read the confederate constitution.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
_(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed._ 

And Lincoln, for all his faults, did attempt compensated emancipation in the border states (his attempt failed) and he did succeed in compensated emancipation in Washington D.C.  http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/i...35&subjectID=3

People will throw a lot of irrelevant arguments at you over this.  (The funniest one is most southerners didn't own slaves.  Well most Americans don't own stock in oil companies either.  The issue isn't what did the rank and file who fought the wars want.  It's what did the elitists who started the war want.)

Anyway, congrats on doing your own research on this and not just relying on some Thomas Dilorenzo video!




> I wish it was true that the Confederacy had seceded over "states rights" and not over slavery.  I can't stand Lincoln, pretty much any of his policies, his idea that states could be forced to stay in the Union, and the expanded Federal government that came about as a result.
> 
> Rothbard once said that one of the two wars in American history was "the war for southern independence."
> 
> After looking at the real facts, I believe he is wrong.  The Civil War was a war of evil against evil, like almost every other war.
> 
> Now, I do not deny that the South defended itself from invasion, that they had the constitutional right to do so (though THEY, interestingly enough, didn't really think they did as such) and that the North was wrong to invade the south.  But I also do not, cannot; deny that the south seceded to protect slavery as an institution.
> 
> South Carolina's declaration of secession:
> ...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What makes you think slavery is illegal?
> Go ahead and provide a quote please.


The thirteenth amendment makes any involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime (which I would say could be morally justified if it was the only means to gain restitution for theft) illegal.  Now, the US government doesn't actually follow the constitution, but slavery is unconstitutional unless its punishment for a crime.

Now, I will agree with you that the constitution is too open ended about what "crimes" are punishable by involuntary servitude.  The constitution isn't really a libertarian document per say, though it does theoretically allow for libertarianism if a state wants to do libertarianism.  But, the constitution doesn't allow people to be enslaved without some kind of due process.

----------


## jmdrake

> What makes you think slavery is illegal?
> Go ahead and provide a quote please.


You said "100% legal".  It's not.  I can go to any part of this nation and without fear of being impressed into a plantation as in the true story "Twelve Years a Slave".  Is there tax slavery and national debt slavery?  Sure.  That existed in the confederacy as well.  Oh and the confederacy instituted a draft before the Union did.  They were enslaving white men to help them keep black men as slaves.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You've discovered what I ran across years ago.  Yes the south seceded in large part because they wanted to "right" to own slaves.  It gets worse.  Read the confederate constitution.
> 
> http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
> _(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed._ 
> 
> And Lincoln, for all his faults, did attempt compensated emancipation in the border states (his attempt failed) and he did succeed in compensated emancipation in Washington D.C.  http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/i...35&subjectID=3
> 
> People will throw a lot of irrelevant arguments at you over this.  (The funniest one is most southerners didn't own slaves.  Well most Americans don't own stock in oil companies either.  The issue isn't what did the rank and file who fought the wars want.  It's what did the elitists who started the war want.)
> 
> Anyway, congrats on doing your own research on this and not just relying on some Thomas Dilorenzo video!


This is a topic we went over in school and we were shown primary source documents.  I haven't looked at all of the documents yet but I looked at a few he didn't go over just to make sure he didn't cherry pick data.  I didn't think he did but I wanted to make sure.  And it doesn't seem like he did.

I want to read DiLorenzo's "the real Lincoln" at some point.  Lincoln's crimes have been verified by pro-Lincoln scholars who try to defend him.  I wouldn't be shocked if Lincoln really believed he was doing the right thing, but it seems unquestionably the case that he wasn't.  At least to me it does.  

It seems to me that even though most southerners didn't own slaves themselves, they supported the institution.  It also seems to me that most of the small slaveholders had some type of paternalistic view toward their slaves, more treating them like children than like animals.  I could be wrong about that though, but that's what I've seen from the limited amount that I've learned.   Even that is bad enough though, there is no need to make every slave holder into a psychopath for the institution to be seen as awful and undefendable.

----------


## brushfire

I really enjoy Shelby's stories - he educated himself from source documents, which are still available today (who knows for how long)

UNION: "What are you fightin for anyhow?"
CONFEDERATE: "I'm fightin cause you're down here"  <-says the man with no assets or slaves





These men could not have cared less about slavery.   Defining the civil war as a war for slavery was a political move, which was first employed to thwart confederate sympathizers in Europe (where slavery had been abolished 30 years prior - political suicide to support)

----------


## jmdrake

Except the Union wasn't "down there" until the South first went "up there."  Lee invaded the North before the North invaded the South.  Had the south stayed...well *South* things might have gone differently.  General McClellan had no interest in invading the South and barely defended the North.  As for the southerners who didn't own slaves, I already addressed that.  Most soldiers today have not clue as to why they are fighting.  The real question is why did the elitists want to secede?  Answer, in part, to protect slavery.




> I really enjoy Shelby's stories - he educated himself from source documents, which are still available today (who knows for how long)
> 
> UNION: "What are you fightin for anyhow?"
> CONFEDERATE: "I'm fightin cause you're down here"  <-says the man with no assets or slaves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These men could not have cared less about slavery.   Defining the civil war as a war for slavery was a political move, which was first employed to thwart confederate sympathizers in Europe (where slavery had been abolished 30 years prior - political suicide to support)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Except the Union wasn't "down there" until the South first went "up there."  Lee invaded the North before the North invaded the South.  Had the south stayed...well *South* things might have gone differently.  General McClellan had no interest in invading the South and barely defended the North.  As for the southerners who didn't own slaves, I already addressed that.  Most soldiers today have not clue as to why they are fighting.  The real question is why did the elitists want to secede?  Answer, in part, to protect slavery.


OK, if this happens:

Country A: We are separating from Country B and becoming our own country.

Country B: YOu can't do that!  We're keeping you in no matter what, even if it takes a war to "Preserve our union".  Oh, and we're keeping armed soldiers in bases right in the middle of your territory.

Country A: If you are going to threaten us like this, we are going to have to take control of the bases by force.

Country B: Bring it on, we'll just use that as a justification to "defend ourselves."

Country A: Attacks Base FS

Country B: Now we will take you over and force you to stay in our country

Country A: Proceeds to preemptively invade the southern part of country A in order to bring the fight to their territory.


Based on this it seems like Country A is, at the least, MORE justified than Country B.  Even if Country A's reasons for seceding were wrong, Country A is still morally justified in doing this in order to defend their country.

The Confederacy is a really hard case of secession to defend because of their reasons, but they still did have a right to secede IMO.  I think it was a war of evil against evil, but I don't think invading Maryland and Pennsylvania (the goal of which was to tire the North of fighting and get them to let the South go) was evil in and of itself.

----------


## otherone

> Except the Union wasn't "down there" until the South first went "up there." Lee invaded the North before the North invaded the South.


Huh?

----------


## otherone

> as well as anyone else who still thinks the South seceded because of "states rights."  Because, much as I want to support secession on principle (And I do), I don't see the evidence.


The Civil War was fought OVER secession, which is a State's "right", or more properly the Right of it's members to self-governance.  The federal government was constitutionally impotent to prevent it; Lincoln resolved to save the federal government with murder.

----------


## jmdrake

> Huh?


*sigh*  Please read.

http://www.historynet.com/why-did-th...-the-north.htm

While the first major battle took place on Confederate soil, the Battle of Bull Run, that was only 25 miles southwest of Washington D.C. and was a defensive maneuver.  The first full scale invasion of either side was General Lee invading the North.

----------


## jmdrake

> The Civil War was fought OVER secession, which is a State's "right", or more properly the Right of it's members to self-governance.  The federal government was constitutionally impotent to prevent it; Lincoln resolved to save the federal government with murder.


And the secession, in this case, was largely over slavery.  When slave owning president Andrew Jackson was faced with the nullification crisis, only South Carolina was willing to go as far as secession.  And Andrew Jackson was willing to be far more brutal than Lincoln was.  Why did the other states join S.C. years later?  Slavery was threatened by the Republican push to stop its expansion.  It's simple electoral math.  The more free states allowed in the union, the less power the slave states would have.  It's interesting that whenever these discussions come up, the pro Confederate side never wants to address what is actually documented.

----------


## otherone

> *Civil War Battles: By Year & Theater*
> 1861
> 
> Eastern Theater
> 
> April 12-14 - Battle of Fort Sumter - South Carolina
> 
> June 3 - Battle of Philippi - Virginia
> 
> ...


huh?

----------


## otherone

> And the secession, in this case, was largely over slavery.


The southern oligarchs wanted independence from the northern oligarchs. Whether it was over slavery or a ham sandwich is immaterial. The north didn't invade to free anyone.

----------


## jmdrake

> OK, if this happens:
> 
> Country A: We are separating from Country B and becoming our own country.
> 
> Country B: YOu can't do that!  We're keeping you in no matter what, even if it takes a war to "Preserve our union".  Oh, and we're keeping armed soldiers in bases right in the middle of your territory.
> 
> Country A: If you are going to threaten us like this, we are going to have to take control of the bases by force.
> 
> Country B: Bring it on, we'll just use that as a justification to "defend ourselves."
> ...


And what about the people in regions C and D that are a part of country A that despise country A's reasons for secession and would rather be a part of country B?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Winston
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_West_Virginia

And remember.  The south instituted a draft before the north did.  Why does a state have a right to force people to fight for its "right" to secede?  I say a pox on both sides.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The Civil War was fought OVER secession, which is a State's "right", or more properly the Right of it's members to self-governance.  The federal government was constitutionally impotent to prevent it; Lincoln resolved to save the federal government with murder.


I agree with part of this.  I think its ethically undeniable that "Saint Abe" is guilty of mass murder.  I also think its undeniable that the North's main motive, at least at first, was to prevent secession.  But, the reason secession happened is that the Northerners were not willing to abide further expansion of slavery, which the South insisted on.  

I don't have to support the North to acknowledge that.  Long run, I actually think we would have been better off had the South won (for one thing, it wouldn't be as easy for the US Empire to murder people today, and I don't think slavery would have lasted that long.)  I am not defending the North here.  But I won't defend the South either.



> And the secession, in this case, was largely over slavery.  When slave owning president Andrew Jackson was faced with the nullification crisis, only South Carolina was willing to go as far as secession.  And Andrew Jackson was willing to be far more brutal than Lincoln was.  Why did the other states join S.C. years later?  Slavery was threatened by the Republican push to stop its expansion.  It's simple electoral math.  The more free states allowed in the union, the less power the slave states would have.  It's interesting that whenever these discussions come up, the pro Confederate side never wants to address what is actually documented.


My US History professor thinks that this is because South Carolina had the biggest vested interest in slavery.  I'm less certain that he's right on that point.  What do you think?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And what about the people in regions C and D that are a part of country A that despise country A's reasons for secession and would rather be a part of country B?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Winston
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_West_Virginia


While you can make an argument that West Virginia seceding from Virginia isn't "constitutional", I think logically and philosophically speaking they should have been able to do it.  

I believe in secession all the way down to the individual.




> And remember.  The south instituted a draft before the north did.  Why does a state have a right to force people to fight for its "right" to secede?  I say a pox on both sides.


I agree that they do not (seriously, did you think we would disagree on this?)  I said "more justified" not "justified."

BTW: I have no issues with "a pox on both sides."

----------


## jmdrake

> huh?


You're counting Missouri and Maryland as confederate states?  Huh?  (Hint.  They weren't).

----------


## jmdrake

> The southern oligarchs wanted independence from the northern oligarchs. Whether it was over slavery or a ham sandwich is immaterial. The north didn't invade to free anyone.


Nobody ever said they did.  The southern oligarchs seceded in large part to protect slavery though.

----------


## jmdrake

> While you can make an argument that West Virginia seceding from Virginia isn't "constitutional", I think logically and philosophically speaking they should have been able to do it.  
> 
> I believe in secession all the way down to the individual.
> 
> 
> I agree that they do not (seriously, did you think we would disagree on this?)  I said "more justified" not "justified."
> 
> BTW: I have no issues with "a pox on both sides."


I knew we wouldn't disagree which is why I brought that up.

----------


## otherone

> You're counting Missouri and Maryland as confederate states?  Huh?  (Hint.  They weren't).


Unlike you, I'm counting every battle up to Lee's "invasion".

Your assertion:



> Except the Union wasn't "down there" until the South first went "up there." Lee invaded the North before the North invaded the South


is unfounded.

----------


## otherone

> the reason secession happened is that the Northerners were not willing to abide further expansion of slavery, which the South insisted on.


The northern states didn't secede.

----------


## William Tell

> huh?





> "you must spread some reputation around before giving it to otherone again"


Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to invade southern states such as South Carolina. That caused other states most notably Virginia to secede.

----------


## William Tell

> *sigh*  Please read.
> 
> http://www.historynet.com/why-did-th...-the-north.htm
> 
> While the first major battle took place on Confederate soil, the Battle of Bull Run, that was only 25 miles southwest of Washington D.C. and was a defensive maneuver.  The first full scale invasion of either side was General Lee invading the North.


So the north "wasn't down there" when they were killing people on Southern soil? wth?

----------


## jmdrake

> So the north "wasn't down there" when they were killing people on Southern soil? wth?


Actually the first blood was spilled in the union state of Maryland.  While Maryland owned slaves it never seceded.  

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...-the-civil-war

----------


## William Tell

> Actually the first blood was spilled in the union state of Maryland.  While Maryland owned slaves it never seceded.  
> 
> http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...-the-civil-war





> On April 19, 1861, the first blood of the American Civil War is shed when a secessionist mob in Baltimore attacks Massachusetts troops bound for Washington, D.C. Four soldiers and 12 rioters were killed.


Umkay? that is a Maryland issue....

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You're counting Missouri and Maryland as confederate states?  Huh?  (Hint.  They weren't).


Missouri did have a secessionist government as well, as did Kentucky, as would Maryland were Lincoln not to stop them from doing so via martial law.



> Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to invade southern states such as South Carolina. That caused other states most notably Virginia to secede.


AFAIK this is correct.  But originally secession happened because of slavery.  That is what the primary source documents say.

----------


## willwash

Yes and no.  The _principle_ at stake was states rights.  The _issue_ that precipitated the conflict was slavery.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes and no.  The _principle_ at stake was states rights.  The _issue_ that precipitated the conflict was slavery.


Except that the South wasn't even consistently for "states rights", only when it benefited them.

----------


## jmdrake

> Missouri did have a secessionist government as well, as did Kentucky, as would Maryland were Lincoln not to stop them from doing so via martial law.


Ultimately more men from Maryland fought with the Union than with the confederacy.  (50,000 to about 25,000).  So based on that it's no guarantee Maryland would have ultimately seceded.

----------


## jmdrake

> Except that the South wasn't even consistently for "states rights", only when it benefited them.


True.  The south was against states rights when it came to the enforcement of fugitive slave laws.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ultimately more men from Maryland fought with the Union than with the confederacy.  (50,000 to about 25,000).  So based on that it's no guarantee Maryland would have ultimately seceded.


I was saying that Maryland would have had a Confederate government operating alongside the Union government like Missouri and Kentucky did.  Not that the whole state would have seceded.  I may still be wrong though.

----------


## jmdrake

> I was saying that Maryland would have had a Confederate government operating alongside the Union government like Missouri and Kentucky did.  Not that the whole state would have seceded.  I may still be wrong though.


Ah.  You're probably right on that.

----------


## Origanalist

> Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to invade southern states such as South Carolina. That caused other states most notably Virginia to secede.


Got it

----------


## Origanalist

> True.  The south was against states rights when it came to the enforcement of fugitive slave laws.


Another +rep, there really isn't a "good" side. Just the greater of two evils.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I wish it was true that the Confederacy had seceded over "states rights" and not over slavery.  I can't stand Lincoln, pretty much any of his policies, his idea that states could be forced to stay in the Union, and the expanded Federal government that came about as a result.
> 
> Rothbard once said that one of the two wars in American history was "the war for southern independence."
> 
> After looking at the real facts, I believe he is wrong.  The Civil War was a war of evil against evil, like almost every other war.
> 
> Now, I do not deny that the South defended itself from invasion, that they had the constitutional right to do so (though THEY, interestingly enough, didn't really think they did as such) and that the North was wrong to invade the south.  But I also do not, cannot; deny that the south seceded to protect slavery as an institution.
> 
> South Carolina's declaration of secession:
> ...


It is worth noting that slavery was a state's rights issue. Blacks were not viewed as people, but as property, by North and South. The South seceded to protect their "property" rights and the North passed two Confiscation Acts that allowed Union general to put escaped slaves to work as they were still legally "property" under US law.

Also, let us remember that the Civil War was slave power vs. slave power. The North had four slave states, so something like a fourth or a third of states, all of its own.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Ultimately more men from Maryland fought with the Union than with the confederacy.  (50,000 to about 25,000).  So based on that it's no guarantee Maryland would have ultimately seceded.


But how much of that is because Lincoln was using federal troops to occupy the state, I wonder.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It is worth noting that slavery was a state's rights issue. Blacks were not viewed as people, but as property, by North and South. The South seceded to protect their "property" rights and the North passed two Confiscation Acts that allowed Union general to put escaped slaves to work as they were still legally "property" under US law.
> 
> Also, let us remember that the Civil War was slave power vs. slave power. The North had four slave states, so something like a fourth or a third of states, all of its own.


+rep

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It is worth noting that slavery was a state's rights issue. Blacks were not viewed as people, but as property, by North and South. The South seceded to protect their "property" rights and the North passed two Confiscation Acts that allowed Union general to put escaped slaves to work as they were still legally "property" under US law.
> 
> Also, let us remember that the Civil War was slave power vs. slave power. The North had four slave states, so something like a fourth or a third of states, all of its own.


Yes, I understand that slavery was seen as a state's rights issue.  Constitutionally it was, but I'd probably have been one of the guys who was burning that document were I to live back then.  As it is I'm not an enormous fan of the document though I think its useful and that at BARE MINIMUM government officials should obey the document they swore to obey.  We'd be better off if they obeyed the Bible.

But the point is, it wasn't "states rights" in general, it was specifically the state's rights to own slaves.  The South even, as I mentioned, opposed states rights at other time.

My OP wasn't meant to be a defense of the North, and I agree with you that the North sucked as well.  Evil vs evil, like I said.

----------


## otherone

> But the point is, it wasn't "states rights" in general, it was specifically the state's rights to own slaves. The South even, as I mentioned, opposed states rights at other time.


"States" owning slaves was never an issue .

----------


## brushfire

> Except the Union wasn't "down there" until the South first went "up there." 
> 
>  Lee invaded the North before the North invaded the South.  Had the south stayed...well *South* things might have gone differently. 
> 
>  General McClellan had no interest in invading the South and barely defended the North. 
> 
>  As for the southerners who didn't own slaves, I already addressed that.  Most soldiers today have not clue as to why they are fighting.  The real question is why did the elitists want to secede?  Answer, in part, to protect slavery.


I dont see things the same - with all due respect, please let me explain.

The first act of military action, as I recall, was the fortification of Ft Sumter by the Union Army.  Sumter was a coastal fort, located in Charleston SC - a confederate state, not the "north".  Of course, there were other non-military actions that preceded this, but I dont think its necessary to illustrate those events to make this particular argument.

So SC secedes, and Lincoln takes military action, right in SC's front yard...  I can understand and respect the ensuing attack on Sumter.  One may make a good argument that Lincoln's actions were taken to deliberately draw fire (have we ever seen this in history?).  Regardless, one has a hard time making an argument, as least as far as I stand, that SC was not within its right to defend its sovereignty, on its own land.

Lincoln has said it many times, in his own words, he was all about "Saving the Union".  The "its for the slaves" was political nonsense that came much later.  I liken it to how Bush saved us all from WMD's.  Is that really what happened?  Is it possible to write history like that?

McClellan was not very motivated, we agree on that, but I think that fact favors the point I've been trying to make here.   Many of the Union forces were not motivated - they got their a$$es kicked on a regular basis - even while having superior numbers, firepower, and position.  To be fair, the Union was not fighting the war in familiar territory, and the could have cared less about the slaves.

Please excuse my quote here - its not the only one of its kind, but I'm getting a little tired - been putting lots of hours in and I'd be typing the same thing anyway:




> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2967.html
> 
> 
> On November 6, 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States -- an event that outraged southern states. The Republican party had run on an anti-slavery platform, and many southerners felt that there was no longer a place for them in the Union. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded. By Febrary 1, 1861, six more states -- Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas -- had split from the Union. The seceded states created the Confederate States of America and elected Jefferson Davis, a Mississippi Senator, as their provisional president.
> 
> In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun.
> 
> Immediately following the attack, four more states -- Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee -- severed their ties with the Union. To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.


Now I'll come clean, I was subtlety schooled on ol "Honest Abe" one night.  I  have a neighbor who I discussed this very same topic with over some beers.  The same topic you and I are having right now, only I was on your side of the argument.

I recall the feeling of shock, who is this guy?  I found myself instinctively moving the conversation back to the abolishment of slavery.  It took me a moment to realize that his questioning the actions and character of Lincoln was not an endorsement of slavery.  We did not come to any kind of an agreement that night, but I went home and did research for months after.   The very first thing I recall finding, I'll never forget it, were racist remarks by Lincoln.  I was like, WTF?  Is that for real?  It gets better - these remarks were quotes, but not in some obscure diary entry or text...  These quotes were on brass plaques in the Lincoln Memorial  - yea, and they're still there for all to see.    That was enough to fuel several years of casual research on the topic, and now I see Lincoln for who he really is - another politician.  Oh, but to his fellow politicians he's glorious.  The same people who fund schools and memorials - not so ironic when I think about it.

In the end, you and I may disagree on the man.   I'm ok with that, but I urge you to look into the guy just a little bit more, assuming you haven't already.

----------


## jmdrake

> I dont see things the same - with all due respect, please let me explain.
> 
> The first act of military action, as I recall, was the fortification of Ft Sumter by the Union Army.  Sumter was a coastal fort, located in Charleston SC - a confederate state, not the "north".  Of course, there were other non-military actions that preceded this, but I dont think its necessary to illustrate those events to make this particular argument.


No blood was shed in the defense of Ft. Sumpter.




> So SC secedes, and Lincoln takes military action, right in SC's front yard...  I can understand and respect the ensuing attack on Sumter.  One may make a good argument that Lincoln's actions were taken to deliberately draw fire (have we ever seen this in history?).  Regardless, one has a hard time making an argument, as least as far as I stand, that SC was not within its right to defend its sovereignty, on its own land.
> 
> Lincoln has said it many times, in his own words, he was all about "Saving the Union".  The "its for the slaves" was political nonsense that came much later.  I liken it to how Bush saved us all from WMD's.  Is that really what happened?  Is it possible to write history like that?


Lincoln also made it very clear in his inauguration speech that he had not intention to enforce fugitive slave laws or allow slavery to expand to new states.  Both the lack of enforcement of fugitive slave laws and the restriction of the expansion of slavery were noted by many slave states in their declarations of secession.  In fact that's the point of the OP.  And the title of the thread is *NOT* "Did Lincoln start the war to end slavery" but rather "Did the Confederacy really secede over states rights".  The truth is...they didn't.  As FF has pointed out, southern states were happy to abuse states rights when convenient in defense of slavery.




> McClellan was not very motivated, we agree on that, but I think that fact favors the point I've been trying to make here.   Many of the Union forces were not motivated - they got their a$$es kicked on a regular basis - even while having superior numbers, firepower, and position.  To be fair, the Union was not fighting the war in familiar territory, and the could have cared less about the slaves.
> 
> Please excuse my quote here - its not the only one of its kind, but I'm getting a little tired - been putting lots of hours in and I'd be typing the same thing anyway:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I'll come clean, I was subtlety schooled on ol "Honest Abe" one night.  I  have a neighbor who I discussed this very same topic with over some beers.  The same topic you and I are having right now, only I was on your side of the argument.
> 
> I recall the feeling of shock, who is this guy?  I found myself instinctively moving the conversation back to the abolishment of slavery.  It took me a moment to realize that his questioning the actions and character of Lincoln was not an endorsement of slavery.  We did not come to any kind of an agreement that night, but I went home and did research for months after.   The very first thing I recall finding, I'll never forget it, were racist remarks by Lincoln.  I was like, WTF?  Is that for real?  It gets better - these remarks were quotes, but not in some obscure diary entry or text...  These quotes were on brass plaques in the Lincoln Memorial  - yea, and they're still there for all to see.    That was enough to fuel several years of casual research on the topic, and now I see Lincoln for who he really is - another politician.  Oh, but to his fellow politicians he's glorious.  The same people who fund schools and memorials - not so ironic when I think about it.
> ...


Really this particular debate is not about Lincoln.  I've read about everything possible about the man and a lot of the crap put out by Southern apologists is as inaccurate as the crap put out by Lincoln worshipers.  For example the claim that Lincoln wanted to deport all freed slaves is a flat out lie.  He gave the opportunity for the ones to leave to do so.  Lincoln also did compensated emancipation where possible.  But again, this thread isn't about Lincoln.  That's a red herring.

----------


## Pericles

> The northern states didn't secede.


They threatened to over the War with Mexico, and 4 of them did not participate in the War of 1812, until after the invasion of Maryland in 1814.

----------


## brushfire

> And the title of the thread is *NOT* "Did Lincoln start the war to end slavery" but rather "Did the Confederacy really secede over states rights". 
> But again, this thread isn't about Lincoln.  That's a red herring.


Fair enough - I'm afraid I was hit with a bit of tunnel vision, my apologies for that.

I still tend to agree with Thomas Di, going back to your first post, as I've still not seen anyone effectively argue against his facts.

I'm also sure that slavery was also a contributing factor, but I don't believe it was the only, or even the most significant.

Also, do you suppose the tariff of 1828 had no weight in the matter?  Was it was purely about the right to own slaves, in your eyes?

Lastly, do you believe Shelby Foote to be a "southern apologist"?

----------


## Pericles

The South realized that the trend was unfavorable for maintaining slavery. The House was increasingly tilted in favor of representatives of free states. 14 of the 34 states permitted slavery, and there were unlikely to be any more slave states. Lincoln would certainly approve what became the 13A. They decided to act before the inevitable occurred. Given that the war cost over 16 billion dollars, and the "market value" of all slaves in 1861 was some 14 billion, in hindsight the course of action was obvious.

----------


## mosquitobite

Do any of you believe our nation would still be trading slaves today had the war not happened?  

What if the south had been allowed to secede...?

Can you see any other means to ending slavery without so much bloodshed?

----------


## jmdrake

> Fair enough - I'm afraid I was hit with a bit of tunnel vision, my apologies for that.
> 
> I still tend to agree with Thomas Di, going back to your first post, as I've still not seen anyone effectively argue against his facts.
> 
> I'm also sure that slavery was also a contributing factor, but I don't believe it was the only, or even the most significant.
> 
> Also, do you suppose the tariff of 1828 had no weight in the matter?  Was it was purely about the right to own slaves, in your eyes?
> 
> Lastly, do you believe Shelby Foote to be a "southern apologist"?


Tariffs were at historic lows in 1861 when southern states seceded.  So I don't believe the tariff of 1828 *when slave holding president Andrew Jackson was in charge and when most southern states were not willing to go as far as secession* really has any bearing.  I fact it undermines the "It wasn't about slavery" argument.  If it was about tariffs mainly than the south should have seceded then and not waited until the tariffs had been reduced.  This sounds like a woman that says to her husband "I'm leaving you if you don't stop drinking whiskey but you can keep drinking beer", divorces him for some other reason later, and says "It's about your drinking."

I don't know enough about Shelby Forte to comment.  I do see that neither you nor anyone else has picked up on my point that soldiers typically don't understand or even car about the real reasons for a conflict.  I bet the poor dirt farming confederate didn't care about tariffs either.  Anyway, Lincoln probably should have let the south secede.  It would have crumbled eventually under the weight of its own corruption and backwardness.  The reason the south ultimately lost the civil war is because it had no heavy industry.  Heavy industry couldn't come to the south until the south freed it's labor force.  Steel mills don't work to well with slave labor.  It's too easy for a disgruntled slave to loosen one wrong bolt and destroy an entire factory.

----------


## William Tell

> Do any of you believe our nation would still be trading slaves today had the war not happened?  
> 
> What if the south had been allowed to secede...?
> 
> Can you see any other means to ending slavery without so much bloodshed?


Slavery of that form would have been abolished peacefully here, just like it was in every other western nation. A few union states still allowed slavery during the war, I mean come on, how obvious is that?

----------


## Pericles

> Tariffs were at historic lows in 1861 when southern states seceded.  So I don't believe the tariff of 1828 *when slave holding president Andrew Jackson was in charge and when most southern states were not willing to go as far as secession* really has any bearing.  I fact it undermines the "It wasn't about slavery" argument.  If it was about tariffs mainly than the south should have seceded then and not waited until the tariffs had been reduced.  This sounds like a woman that says to her husband "I'm leaving you if you don't stop drinking whiskey but you can keep drinking beer", divorces him for some other reason later, and says "It's about your drinking."
> 
> I don't know enough about Shelby Forte to comment.  I do see that neither you nor anyone else has picked up on my point that soldiers typically don't understand or even car about the real reasons for a conflict.  I bet the poor dirt farming confederate didn't care about tariffs either.  Anyway, Lincoln probably should have let the south secede.  It would have crumbled eventually under the weight of its own corruption and backwardness.  The reason the south ultimately lost the civil war is because it had no heavy industry.  Heavy industry couldn't come to the south until the south freed it's labor force.  Steel mills don't work to well with slave labor.  It's too easy for a disgruntled slave to loosen one wrong bolt and destroy an entire factory.


Men joined because there was a war and men fight in it. In fact, some were worried that the war would be over before they got a chance to be in it. After it got going, the motivation of the soldier was "to see the thing through". As is usual, men fight for their comrades, more than for any other "cause".

----------


## jmdrake

> Do any of you believe our nation would still be trading slaves today had the war not happened?  
> 
> What if the south had been allowed to secede...?
> 
> Can you see any other means to ending slavery without so much bloodshed?


Lincoln tried compensated emancipation with the border states and he was rejected both by the border states who wanted more money than offered and the free states that didn't want to pay.  One thing people typically gloss over is that countries where slavery ended without war were not regionally divided slave and free.  Lincoln could have offered to raise tariffs but send the money south.  Not sure if the south would have gone along with that.  And there is not telling if slavery would have continued if the south had been successful.

----------


## jmdrake

> Men joined because there was a war and men fight in it. In fact, some were worried that the war would be over before they got a chance to be in it. After it got going, the motivation of the soldier was "to see the thing through". As is usual, men fight for their comrades, more than for any other "cause".


Yep.  The Russian conscripts in Afghanistan had the same experience.

----------


## jmdrake

> The South realized that the trend was unfavorable for maintaining slavery. The House was increasingly tilted in favor of representatives of free states. 14 of the 34 states permitted slavery, and there were unlikely to be any more slave states. Lincoln would certainly approve what became the 13A. They decided to act before the inevitable occurred. Given that the war cost over 16 billion dollars, and the "market value" of all slaves in 1861 was some 14 billion, in hindsight the course of action was obvious.


Yep.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Lincoln tried compensated emancipation with the border states and he was rejected both by the border states who wanted more money than offered and the free states that didn't want to pay.  One thing people typically gloss over is that countries where slavery ended without war were not regionally divided slave and free.  Lincoln could have offered to raise tariffs but send the money south.  Not sure if the south would have gone along with that.  And there is not telling if slavery would have continued if the south had been successful.  The south would probably much poorer than it is today though.  The economic boom that happened in the south post slavery when industrialization came south would have happened later if at all.


Couldn't they have allowed them to secede and then not trade with them?  Wouldn't the other countries that ended up banning slavery also refuse to trade?  Yes other countries weren't divided, but that was supposedly what made our nation great & different!

I truly believe had the south seceded and the north continue to profit from the industrial revolution, not only would slavery be over, but I think race relations would be better than they are today.  Is there anywhere in the world today that still allows slavery?

----------


## jmdrake

> Couldn't they have allowed them to secede and then not trade with them?  Wouldn't the other countries that ended up banning slavery also refuse to trade?  Yes other countries weren't divided, but that was supposedly what made our nation great & different!
> 
> I truly believe had the south seceded and the north continue to profit from the industrial revolution, not only would slavery be over, but I think race relations would be better than they are today.  Is there anywhere in the world today that still allows slavery?


Apparently these other nations didn't mind trading with the slave holding USA prior to the civil war.  Why would they all of a sudden decide not to trade with the slave holding CSA afterwards?  And we haven't stopped trading with China.  http://www.scmp.com/news/world/artic...lion-worldwide

----------


## torchbearer

Is there racial tension in england like there is in the U.S. (even still)? nope.
The reason is in the means... or the "how" slavery was ended.

Learning the history of the town I live in I learned that the union soldiers used the dark skin humans to go back to their plantations to steal the plantation's cotton. The union freed the cotton, and left the dark skins humans for retaliation... and hatred began as the light skin people of this area began seeing the darker skinned humans as aiding the humans that burned down people's homes and businesses.
Wonder why things got so rotten.....for sooooooooooo long.
Why didn't england experience the same problems of integration?
May have something to do with the means and not the end.

----------


## William Tell

> Is there racial tension in england like there is in the U.S. (even still)?
> The reason is in the means... or the "how" slavery was ended.
> 
> Learning the history of the townI live in I learned that the union soldiers used the dark skin humans to go back to their plantations to steal the plantation's cotton. The union freed the cotton, and left the dark skins humans for retaliation... and hatred began as the light skin people began seeing the darker skinned as aiding the humans that burned down people's homes and businesses.
> Wonder why things got so rotten.....for sooooooooooo long.
> Why didn't england experience the same problems of integration?
> May have something to do with the means and not the end.


Union soldiers also raped and murdered a lot of blacks.

----------


## Pericles

> Apparently these other nations didn't mind trading with the slave holding USA prior to the civil war.  Why would they all of a sudden decide not to trade with the slave holding CSA afterwards?  And we haven't stopped trading with China.  http://www.scmp.com/news/world/artic...lion-worldwide


Correct - English mills purchased cotton from the South, they shifted to Egypt as the source, when the Confederacy was blockaded.

One school of thought was that slavery was becoming unprofitable, and would have ended at some point anyway, but I'm not sold on that as there is the racial angle at play. 

After the war, the northern industrial states liked freed slaves because they were cheaper labor than the Irish.

----------


## torchbearer

> Correct - English mills purchased cotton from the South, they shifted to Egypt as the source, when the Confederacy was blockaded.
> 
> One school of thought was that slavery was becoming unprofitable, and would have ended at some point anyway, but I'm not sold on that as there is the racial angle at play. 
> 
> After the war, the northern industrial atates liked freed slaves because they were cheaper labor than the Irish.



Unmanaged slaves in which you get a withdrawal of taxes before each paycheck is written is more efficient than chattel slavery and requires less resources.
The dark skinned people traded one slavery for another... I have a dream. Nice words like hope and change.. and perfect for the unthinking Boobus.

----------


## torchbearer

Government made slavery legal. The answer, more government.
You hear the same $#@! from Ferguson protesters.

----------


## brushfire

> Tariffs were at historic lows in 1861 when southern states seceded.  So I don't believe the tariff of 1828 *when slave holding president Andrew Jackson was in charge and when most southern states were not willing to go as far as secession* really has any bearing.  I fact it undermines the "It wasn't about slavery" argument.
> 
> If it was about tariffs mainly than the south should have seceded then and not waited until the tariffs had been reduced.  This sounds like a woman that says to her husband "I'm leaving you if you don't stop drinking whiskey but you can keep drinking beer", divorces him for some other reason later, and says "It's about your drinking."
> 
> I do see that neither you nor anyone else has picked up on my point that soldiers typically don't understand or even car about the real reasons for a conflict.  I bet the poor dirt farming confederate didn't care about tariffs either.  Anyway, Lincoln probably should have let the south secede.  It would have crumbled eventually under the weight of its own corruption and backwardness.  The reason the south ultimately lost the civil war is because it had no heavy industry.  Heavy industry couldn't come to the south until the south freed it's labor force.  Steel mills don't work to well with slave labor.  It's too easy for a disgruntled slave to loosen one wrong bolt and destroy an entire factory.


Do you believe the tariffs might have been disproportionately applied to the southern states?  I will not need to make my point about the North having more wealth and industry, as you have made that point already.  I will add to that though that the North did not pay tariffs like the South.  Add to this the fact that the North also had more political power, and some might be able to see a reason for war.  Losing the slaves was certain to have a financial impact, but I think people of that era were tired of the North interfering with their lives.  We see the disproportionate influence of wealth in politics today - judging by people's responses here, I have to imagine that people in the South were pretty pi$$ed off.

I did pick up on your point about how you believe the soldiers were incapable of comprehending what they were fighting for - as though they were lemmings.  Forgive me if that was not the point you were trying to make, but I did not respond to that because I simply did not agree with what I thought you were trying to say.

Let me explain why I dont agree...  When there is a military occupation, which is precisely what the North moving into fort Sumter was, then people begin to rally.  The effects of foreign military action come up quite a bit on RPF - heck, even in your signature.  911, for instance, has people still reeling today...  What an impact that event had - look at where we are today because of it - the place doesn't even look the same.

Enlistment numbers post 911, I don't recall what they were, but I recall that they were pretty substantial.  Event then, the common person, who is not enlisted, is begging the very government that they hold a ~9% approval rating of, to take all of their rights, with the promise of protection.   People are begging to be groped and scanned...over that single event.  So the point I'm trying to make is that those men were not idiots, they were rallying against an enemy.  In fact, now that I think of it, their ranks grew by 4 states after Sumter...   I did not say anything about it before, but I think you may be being a bit disingenuous to dismiss the significance of Sumter in your other post.  The fact that there were no battle casualties is quite remarkable, but not relative to the overall impact of the event its self.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> "States" owning slaves was never an issue .


I understand.  States wanted people to be able to own slaves.



> Do any of you believe our nation would still be trading slaves today had the war not happened?


No.




> What if the south had been allowed to secede...?
> 
> Can you see any other means to ending slavery without so much bloodshed?


Yes.

Its really unfortunate that people are responding to this thread as if I were a Lincoln/war of northern aggression apologist.  I thought you guys knew me better than that.

I am not defending the "civil" war, nor am I defending Lincoln or denying the South's right to secede or any of that.

Did any of you guys even look at the primary source data?

----------


## Christian Liberty

This thread is not about whether the War of Northern Aggression was OK.  I think we all agree it wasn't.

This thread is not about whether Lincoln was a good man.  I can't speak for Jmdrake, but I would hold that he wasn't.

This thread is not about whether the results of the civil war were a net benefit (utility positive.)  There are a lot of variables that would go into that, but I tend to think it wasn't.

This thread is not about whether Lincoln was an abolitionist.  We all know he wasn't.

This thread isn't about government "fixed the problem".  I am not claiming so.

Again, THIS IS NOT ABOUT DEFENDING THE NORTH.

This is about**: Did the Confederacy really secede over "states rights?"

If we mean that term the way we mean it in 2014, it seems clear to me that this is false.  The only "states right" that was at stake directly was the right to own slaves.  Did the North later use that as precedent to deny other states rights?  Of course they did.  But, that doesn't change the fact that, FACTUALLY, South Carolina and Mississippi mentioned slavery specifically as the cause for secession.  This isn't me defending the North, or believing government indoctrination garbage.  This is the primary source material.

----------


## brushfire

BTW - I have a correction to make.  I'll leave my post unedited but I erroneously cited the tariff of 1828 when I intended to cite the Morrill Tariff.   The Morill tariff was proposed in 1859.  Sorry for the mistake, but it was not in my favor anyway.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff

----------


## brushfire

> This is about**: Did the Confederacy really secede over "states rights?"


I'm with ya my friend.   I've changed my ways - I promise  

To answer this, I think there were a number of factors, as I've been trying to convey.   The biggest being, as I see it, the sovereignty of states  (states rights).

I try to keep in mind that there events involved governments - state governments have the same problems that federal ones do.  In the bigger picture though, what would drive a man of that time to face the carnage of a civil war battle field was not slavery.   Its an over simplification, but for the north it was the union, and for the south it was sovereignty.  Slavery was certainly a part of it, but not to the extent that government schools make it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm with ya my friend.   I've changed my ways - I promise  
> 
> To answer this, I think there were a number of factors, as I've been trying to convey.   The biggest being, as I see it, the sovereignty of states  (states rights).
> 
> I try to keep in mind that there events involved governments - state governments have the same problems that federal ones do.  In the bigger picture though, what would drive a man of that time to face the carnage of a civil war battle field was not slavery.   Its an over simplification, but for the north it was the union, and for the south it was sovereignty.  Slavery was certainly a part of it, but not to the extent that government schools make it.


But where is the evidence in the primary source documents that the South's primary motivation wasn't slavery?  It seems obvious that it was.  I honestly don't really like that because my general mentality is to side with the secessionists and to say the public schools are skewing history as they often do, but the evidence that I see is telling me that slavery was the cause of the civil war.

Can you give me any evidence that that isn't the case?

Now, I agree that the North were neither saints nor abolitionists.  The North was unwilling to let slavery expand, and they were unwilling to let the Union die.  The South wanted slavery to expand, and they were willing to tear the country apart in order to get it.  And thus, war.

Even with all that, I tend more to side with the South, because they still had the right to secede even though they were doing it for terrible reasons.  Ultimately though, Jmdrake is right and Lynsander Spooner was right, a pox on both sides.

----------


## torchbearer

> This is about**: Did the Confederacy really secede over "states rights?"



Your question is in error.
That is why you get faulty responses.
It is like asking you, "Did you enjoy beating your wife and molesting your children?"
It makes an assumption that probably isn't true, but forces you to basically answer a dishonest question.
The southern states didn't secede because of state's rights. That wasn't the argument. The argument was over the taxing of livestock(humans) and tariffs. The northern industry benefited from the cotton plantations of the south.
It wasn't until the northern Reps wanted out of the war in 1863, did lincoln pull a desperate move. He freed slaves in a territory he no longer had jurisdiction over and didn't free the slaves in the territories in which he had jurisdiction.
The changing of the war from an economic one to a moral one, helped keep the northern families sending their children into a meat grinder for a shadow government.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Your question is in error.
> That is why you get faulty responses.
> It is like asking you, "Did you enjoy beating your wife and molesting your children?"
> It makes an assumption that probably isn't true, but forces you to basically answer a dishonest question.
> The southern states didn't secede because of state's rights. That wasn't the argument. The argument was over the taxing of livestock(humans) and tariffs. The northern industry benefited from the cotton plantations of the south.
> It wasn't until the northern Reps wanted out of the war in 1863, did lincoln pull a desperate move. He freed slaves in a territory he no longer had jurisdiction over and didn't free the slaves in the territories in which he had jurisdiction.
> The changing of the war from an economic one to a moral one, helped keep the northern families sending their children into a meat grinder for a shadow government.


It seems very clear to me that the war was over slavery.  I did NOT say it was about slavery as a "moral question."  I agree that the North was filled with moral hypocrites.  But the primary source documents still clearly say that the south did in fact secede because of slavery.

----------


## brushfire

> But where is the evidence in the primary source documents that the South's primary motivation wasn't slavery?  It seems obvious that it was.  I honestly don't really like that because my general mentality is to side with the secessionists and to say the public schools are skewing history as they often do, but the evidence that I see is telling me that slavery was the cause of the civil war.
> 
> Can you give me any evidence that that isn't the case?
> 
> Now, I agree that the North were neither saints nor abolitionists.  The North was unwilling to let slavery expand, and they were unwilling to let the Union die.  The South wanted slavery to expand, and they were willing to tear the country apart in order to get it.  And thus, war.
> 
> Even with all that, I tend more to side with the South, because they still had the right to secede even though they were doing it for terrible reasons.  Ultimately though, Jmdrake is right and Lynsander Spooner was right, a pox on both sides.


Isn't this how it works?   Show me.  Its a fair request and I will make an effort to do so

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Isn't this how it works?   Show me.  Its a fair request and I will make an effort to do so


Show you what?

I posted excerpts from the primary source documents in the OP.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## jmdrake

> Do you believe the tariffs might have been disproportionately applied to the southern states?  I will not need to make my point about the North having more wealth and industry, as you have made that point already.  I will add to that though that the North did not pay tariffs like the South.  Add to this the fact that the North also had more political power, and some might be able to see a reason for war.  Losing the slaves was certain to have a financial impact, but I think people of that era were tired of the North interfering with their lives.  We see the disproportionate influence of wealth in politics today - judging by people's responses here, I have to imagine that people in the South were pretty pi$$ed off.


Ummm.....why are you ignoring the fact that *the south did NOT secede when tariffs were high and slavery was not threatened but DID secede when tariffs were low and slavery was threatened?*

Seriously, until you can address that point *honestly* there's no need to talk about tariffs.  Again consider the analogy.  A wife tells a husband she's mad that he's drinking whiskey but she would be okay if he drank beer.  He gave up whiskey and only drank beer.  Then later she divorced him for some other reason (she met someone else and is having an affair) but instead of being honest about it she says "I'm divorcing you over the beer" because that doesn't make her look so bad.  On a better analogy is she actually says "I'm divorcing you because I'm having an affair" (i.e. the slave states saying "We're leaving because you aren't enforcing the fugitive slave laws), but years later her children by the second marriage want to protect her good name and say "Oh no!  You can't pay attention to the dear John letter where she said she left him for another man.  It's *all* about the beer!"




> I did pick up on your point about how you believe the soldiers were incapable of comprehending what they were fighting for - as though they were lemmings.  Forgive me if that was not the point you were trying to make, but I did not respond to that because I simply did not agree with what I thought you were trying to say.


Okay.  First off I didn't say soldiers were incapable of knowing what a war is about.  But *most of them don't*.  That's just facts.  Ask the average Iraq veteran if he *really* knows what the Iraq war was about.  Do you think most World War I veterans knew that we were going to war on the side of a terrorist assassin?  Do you honestly believe that most Vietnam vets were well versed in the ins and outs of what really happened with the Gulf of Tonkin?  If you do believe that, then you are the "lemming" and I feel sorry for you.




> Let me explain why I dont agree...  When there is a military occupation, which is precisely what the North moving into fort Sumter was, then people begin to rally.  The effects of foreign military action come up quite a bit on RPF - heck, even in your signature.  911, for instance, has people still reeling today...  What an impact that event had - look at where we are today because of it - the place doesn't even look the same.


Actually 9/11 proves my point.  It was a total inside job.  The people "rallying" had no clue as to what it was all about.  How much do you know about Pat Tilman?  After 9/11 he quit his high paying NFL job and became an Army Ranger.  Before he was killed by friendly fire (and possibly fragged), he had started to realize that the entire war was a sham.  That's what I'm talking about.  The reasons that individual soldiers in any conflict fight is irrelevant to the reasons for the actions of the elitists who helped precipitate the conflict.  This really isn't a debatable point.

And the title of the thread, which you keep ignoring, is "Did the Confederacy really secede over states rights."  There was no "rally" over a Northern "invasion" before there was secession.  Seriously, Ft Sumter had been there for years.  Southerners didn't lay siege on Ft. Sumter until after secession.  Up until that time it wasn't a "Union Fort".  It was a United States Fort.  General Robert E. Lee was a United States general before becoming a confederate general.  Had there been no secession (something he was against), he might have ended up in charge of Ft. Sumter himself. 




> Enlistment numbers post 911, I don't recall what they were, but I recall that they were pretty substantial.  Event then, the common person, who is not enlisted, is begging the very government that they hold a ~9% approval rating of, to take all of their rights, with the promise of protection.   People are begging to be groped and scanned...over that single event.  So the point I'm trying to make is that those men were not idiots, they were rallying against an enemy.  In fact, now that I think of it, their ranks grew by 4 states after Sumter...   I did not say anything about it before, but I think you may be being a bit disingenuous to dismiss the significance of Sumter in your other post.  The fact that there were no battle casualties is quite remarkable, but not relative to the overall impact of the event its self.


Strawman.  I never said soldiers are idiots.  But most are *ignorant*.  And I'm not using that word as an insult.  Right after 9/11 I was *ignorant* too.  I had no clue as to what was really going on or why.  And here's the point that you seem unable to grasp.  The fact that many people were "beaming with pride" to go fight in wars that had nothing to do with terrorism doesn't change the fact that they didn't know what they were doing.  Ask yourself this question.  Do you really think the average Northern soldier was wanted to go to war to "steal from the South?"  There's a lot easier ways to make a dishonest buck!  Note that Lincoln didn't have to institute a draft at first.  Tens of thousands of Yankee troops "beamed with pride" to enlist to protect Washington D.C. which they felt was under attack.  In your zeal to romanticize the South you forget that the Northern soldiers were human beings too.  But none of the foot soldiers on *either* side had a clue about the machinations and manipulations of the elites on *both* sides!  The average soldier couldn't even read, especially in the South.

----------


## jmdrake

> Your question is in error.
> That is why you get faulty responses.
> It is like asking you, "Did you enjoy beating your wife and molesting your children?"
> It makes an assumption that probably isn't true, but forces you to basically answer a dishonest question.
> The southern states didn't secede because of state's rights. That wasn't the argument. The argument was over the taxing of livestock(humans) and tariffs. The northern industry benefited from the cotton plantations of the south.
> It wasn't until the northern Reps wanted out of the war in 1863, did lincoln pull a desperate move. He freed slaves in a territory he no longer had jurisdiction over and didn't free the slaves in the territories in which he had jurisdiction.
> The changing of the war from an economic one to a moral one, helped keep the northern families sending their children into a meat grinder for a shadow government.


Precisely what do you mean by the "taxing of livestock (humans)"?  Or did you mean the "taking of livestock(humans)"?

----------


## jmdrake

> The seceding states left a pretty good paper trail of why they seceded - in the minutes of their secession conventions. Reading through those minutes reveals slavery to be the issue of overwhelming importance. As far as the tarriff goes, verbage related to slavery versus that related to the tarriff or taxes was roughly 100 to 1.


Exactly!  Modern apologists want to gloss over this because slavery is now seen as "immoral."  But it wasn't seen that way in the South in 1861 and to be fair it wasn't seen that way in much of the North.  Slave based agriculture was not profitable in the North due to the shorter growing season and harsher winters.  And slave labor doesn't do that well in factories.  (For example German production of V2 rockets was sabotaged by Jewish slave laborers who would secretly urinate on control panels).  Some Northerners sincerely wanted to end slavery.  Some Northerners merely wanted more regional control.  Their intersecting interests made them powerful political allies.  The Southern economic way of life was *not* threatened by the low tariffs that existed in 1861.  But it was threatened by subtle attacks on slavery.  From the Southern point of view, someone who "liberated" a slave was like a radical environmentalist who would spike a tree to keep it from being cut down.  Southerns were very concerned about the lack of enforcement of fugitive slave laws.  And restricting the expansion of slavery would mean diluting political power in D.C. even further.  None of this makes the South any more "moral" than the North.  The Democrats today are no more "environmentalist" than Republicans with the way the fly around the world in "high carbon footprint" jet airplanes.  But they're seen as more environmentalist because they at least give lip service to the environment.  Not a perfect analogy for sure but a decent one I think.

----------


## Ronin Truth

It looks like the election of POTUS Lincoln was the trigger for South Carolina's secession (Fort Sumter).

----------


## otherone

> Your question is in error.
> That is why you get faulty responses.


AGREED.
Secession, as thought of by southern states, was an act of state sovereignty, not state's "rights".  The secession, followed by the war, was about POWER.
State sovereignty died with all those poor souls.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Did the Confederacy really secede over "states rights"?


No. The South seceded over slavery.

In the "soup pot" of the South's reasons for secession, so-called "states' rights" and a few other things (like the tariffs issue) were merely "seasoning" added to the "stock" of slavery.




> True.  The south was against states rights when it came to the enforcement of fugitive slave laws.


What is more, the south was against "states' rights" even after they seceeded and formed the CSA. The confederal government repudiated "states' rights" policy-wise (if not rhetorically) under the rubric of "war necessity." It "nationalized" southern railroads, for example, and imposed a variety of other edicts in blatant violation of both the spirit of "states' rights" and the letter of the Confederate constitution.

IOW: The Confederate States of America was an exercise in two-faced, anti-liberty hypocrisy. (And that's true even if we entirely set aside the fact that they were staunch human-chattel slavers.)

But while defense of slavery was "the" reason for the secession of the South, it was not the reason for the Civil War.
The reason for the Civil War was the North's refusal to allow secession (regardless of the South's reasons for secession).

----------


## FloralScent

> Except the Union wasn't "down there" until the South first went "up there."  Lee invaded the North before the North invaded the South.


What the $#@! are you talking about?  Union troops were in Alexandria on May 24, 1861.  Lee didn't even a have a field command at the time.

----------


## jmdrake

> What the $#@! are you talking about?  Union troops were in Alexandria on May 24, 1861.  Lee didn't even a have a field command at the time.


The first blood was shed in Maryland in mob fighting against troops who were merely trying to get from Massachusetts to D.C.  I stand corrected on the timing of the Lee invasion, but insurrection by confederate loyalists in a state that had not seceded (Maryland) preceded any action by the North.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## jmdrake

> That's where I would disagree. Secession was over slavery, but the ensuing war wasn't over slavery.  The war was over preserving the permanance of the Union. Propoents of secession will tend to nudge (if not outright shove) the discussion into the realm of the ensuing war - because the seceeding states become much more sympathetic in that discussion. But that doesn't change the facts, as elaborated in the minutes of the secession conventions, that the overwhelming rationale for secession of the "Slave States" (which is how the seceding states referred to themselves) was the preservation of their "peculiar institution" (aka: slavery).
> 
> Should the southern states have had the right to unilaterally seceed from the Union? I'd argue that they should have, but did not possess the contractual authority to do so. There's nothing in the Constitution that sets up procedures for state secession. And since the Constitution is merely an amending document to the Articles of Confederation *and Perpetual Union*, the provisions of the Articles would command precedence unless formally amended by the Constitution. 
> 
> No where did the Constitution amend that provision of the Articles. That implies that the only dissolution of the relationship which could come about would be by an additional clause to the original agreement, mutually consented to by all the States involved. I certainly wouldn't have signed up for any agreement stated that way (it's basically marriage as viewed by the Catholic Church). But the original thirteen states did. And by their applications to join the Union, all subsequent states also signed on the dotted line.


Interesting.  I'd never read that before.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## willwash

> That's where I would disagree. Secession was over slavery, but the ensuing war wasn't over slavery.  The war was over preserving the permanance of the Union. Propoents of secession will tend to nudge (if not outright shove) the discussion into the realm of the ensuing war - because the seceeding states become much more sympathetic in that discussion. But that doesn't change the facts, as elaborated in the minutes of the secession conventions, that the overwhelming rationale for secession of the "Slave States" (which is how the seceding states referred to themselves) was the preservation of their "peculiar institution" (aka: slavery).
> 
> Should the southern states have had the right to unilaterally seceed from the Union? I'd argue that they should have, but did not possess the contractual authority to do so. There's nothing in the Constitution that sets up procedures for state secession. And since the Constitution is merely an amending document to the Articles of Confederation *and Perpetual Union*, the provisions of the Articles would command precedence unless formally amended by the Constitution. 
> 
> No where did the Constitution amend that provision of the Articles. That implies that the only dissolution of the relationship which could come about would be by an additional clause to the original agreement, mutually consented to by all the States involved. I certainly wouldn't have signed up for any agreement stated that way (it's basically marriage as viewed by the Catholic Church). But the original thirteen states did. And by their applications to join the Union, all subsequent states also signed on the dotted line.


I disagree.  While the Constitution did not amend that particular provision of the Articles, nowhere did the Articles nullify the even more fundamental assertion in the Declaration of Independence that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is their right, it is their duty, to abolish it, and institute new government."

Having lost the consent of the southern states to be governed--the Union having become, in Jefferson's parlance, destructive of the very ends it was established to achieve--the Union, whether intended to be perpetual or not, was no longer binding.

----------


## jmdrake

> I disagree.  While the Constitution did not amend that particular provision of the Articles, nowhere did the Articles nullify the even more fundamental assertion in the Declaration of Independence that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is their right, it is their duty, to abolish it, and institute new government."
> 
> Having lost the consent of the southern states to be governed--the Union having become, in Jefferson's parlance, destructive of the very ends it was established to achieve--the Union, whether intended to be perpetual or not, was no longer binding.


And when did the slaves consent to be governed?

----------


## phill4paul

At the time "state rights" and slavery were not mutually exclusive. To the south it was one and the same. Here are some Declaration of Causes of seceding states.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/hi...nofcauses.html

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Seems to me that the clause of the Articles I quoted, which came later than the Declaration, did just that. If the States disagrreed with it, they shouldn't have signed it.


Which prompts the Spoonerist question, "Upon whom, exactly, is or was the Constitution (or Articles of Confederation) binding?" ...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's where I would disagree. Secession was over slavery, but the ensuing war wasn't over slavery.  The war was over preserving the permanance of the Union. Propoents of secession will tend to nudge (if not outright shove) the discussion into the realm of the ensuing war - because the seceeding states become much more sympathetic in that discussion. But that doesn't change the facts, as elaborated in the minutes of the secession conventions, that the overwhelming rationale for secession of the "Slave States" (which is how the seceding states referred to themselves) was the preservation of their "peculiar institution" (aka: slavery).
> 
> Should the southern states have had the right to unilaterally seceed from the Union? I'd argue that they should have, but did not possess the contractual authority to do so. There's nothing in the Constitution that sets up procedures for state secession. And since the Constitution is merely an amending document to the Articles of Confederation *and Perpetual Union*, the provisions of the Articles would command precedence unless formally amended by the Constitution. 
> 
> No where did the Constitution amend that provision of the Articles. That implies that the only dissolution of the relationship which could come about would be by an additional clause to the original agreement, mutually consented to by all the States involved. I certainly wouldn't have signed up for any agreement stated that way (it's basically marriage as viewed by the Catholic Church). But the original thirteen states did. And by their applications to join the Union, all subsequent states also signed on the dotted line.


I would certainly agree with you that the war was over the right to secede.  What I meant though was that the issue that made there be a conflict was slavery.  The south wanted to secede rather than let the North interfere with slavery.  The North wanted to go to war to stop the South from seceding over slavery.  But I agree the North also would have gone to war if the South had wanted to secede for a different reason.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Which prompts the Spoonerist question, "Upon whom, exactly, is or was the Constitution (or Articles of Confederation) binding?" ...


Certainly not on us, or on the people of the southern states, or the slaves, or any other number of people.

However, it IS binding on politicians who swear an oath to uphold it.

----------


## willwash

> Seems to me that the clause of the Articles I quoted, which came later than the Declaration, did just that. A later compact can modify or eliminate an earlier compact provided it has the consent of those involved. If the States disagreed with it, they shouldn't have signed it. Signing it means they consented.


I get what you're saying, but I don't think it makes the point you're saying it makes.  The Declaration is a sweeping, fundamental philosophical statement that NO form of government is legitimate which does not act according to the consent of the governed, or that works counter to its sole mandate to secure the inalienable rights of its citizens...just because a government calls itself "perpetual" it is not absolved of its responsibility to act according to these self evident truths, which seems to be what you're implying by referencing the articles' setting up a "perpetual" government.

Also, your very own quote disproves the assertion you are making...as you say a later compact can nullify an earlier one, even if the earlier one calls itself "perpetual"

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## jmdrake

> I get what you're saying, but I don't think it makes the point you're saying it makes.  The Declaration is a sweeping, fundamental philosophical statement that NO form of government is legitimate which does not act according to the consent of the governed, or that works counter to its sole mandate to secure the inalienable rights of its citizens...just because a government calls itself "perpetual" it is not absolved of its responsibility to act according to these self evident truths, which seems to be what you're implying by referencing the articles' setting up a "perpetual" government.
> 
> Also, your very own quote disproves the assertion you are making...as you say a later compact can nullify an earlier one, even if the earlier one calls itself "perpetual"


Which, by definition, means that no government that allows slaves is a legitimate form of government.  After all slaves, by definition, can't "consent" to being governed.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## otherone

> Which, by definition, means that no government that allows slaves is a legitimate form of government.  After all slaves, by definition, can't "consent" to being governed.


Slaves weren't governed.  They were owned.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## otherone

> No, it doesn't disprove the point I was making. Any contractual clause can be modified with the consent of those involved. Contractual clauses are not hard, unchanging, scientific facts; they're merely agreements as to how the entitites involved agree to operate. If they agree that an earlier contractual clause was ridiculous, non-specific, or unreasonable, then they can agree to act differently going forward.


"Perpetual", in this regard, meaning "not specifically temporary".
If ALL the states agreed to dissolve the compact, the term "perpetual" holds no force...because a union is perpetuated by consent.

----------


## willwash

My only point is that the appearance of the word "perpetuity" in the AOC is not the end all be all wrt the question of secession.  Certain assumptions must continue to be met, viz, those in the declaration about the purpose of government.

Also, if a government is invalid merely because it countenances slavery, then the original union itself was null and void for that very reason.

----------


## jmdrake

> Also, if a government is invalid merely because it countenances slavery, then the original union itself was null and void for that very reason.


No argument there.  I wouldn't have minded joining the Iroquois confederacy.  Or maybe the Seminoles.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## otherone

> Slaves weren't governed.  They were owned.


For Voluntarist:

_What is PERSON?

A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised.

 (Black's Law Dictionary)

_

translation:  government doesn't bestow rights, but it decides who is due them.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Some States did and some states didn't.  It depends on a state by state basis.  NC only finally agreed to secede because Lincoln marched troops across NC to attack SC without permission.  This was considered a blatant violation of State sovereignty as enshrined in the US Constitution, and so NC Seceded from what they believed was an illegitimate government.  SC and Mississippi were far more focused on the preservation of slavery than say NC and TN.

----------


## jmdrake

> For Voluntarist:
> 
> _What is PERSON?
> 
> A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised.
> 
>  (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> _
> ...


I beg to differ.  Slaves could be put o trial.  A very curious case is that of a slave know as "Negro Will".  He killed his white overseer and claimed self defense.  He was acquitted.

http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/...dia/826/entry/

----------


## otherone

> I beg to differ.  Slaves could be put o trial.


The goalposts were moved often.

_  5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man._

----------


## Ronin Truth

Slavery was inherited from the Brits.

----------


## torchbearer

> Precisely what do you mean by the "taxing of livestock (humans)"?  Or did you mean the "taking of livestock(humans)"?



both.
for to tax a human's efforts is to take ownership of that person.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

I no longer worship Lincoln, but I still can't get myself to support the CSA.  It seems pretty clear that no states would have seceded had any of the other 3 three would have won.  The Southern states were frightened because the Republicans wanted to stop the expansion of slavery.  It was only a matter of time before the slave states lost their power and influence in Congress.  Secession was the only thing that the South could do to protect its "peculiar institution."  There was no way that the Southern people could have known what Lincoln would eventually do that were unconstitutional.

Oh, and here is what the 1860 GOP platform said about state's rights.




> That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

----------


## torchbearer

> I no longer worship Lincoln, but I still can't get myself to support the CSA.  It seems pretty clear that no states would have seceded had any of the other 3 three would have won.  The Southern states were frightened because the Republicans wanted to stop the expansion of slavery.  It was only a matter of time before the slave states lost their power and influence in Congress.  Secession was the only thing that the South could do to protect its "peculiar institution."  There was no way that the Southern people could have known what Lincoln would eventually do that were unconstitutional.
> 
> Oh, and here is what the 1860 GOP platform said about state's rights.



I don't think you have to support the ideas of the CSA to state what lincoln did was mass murder and that people have the right to associate and disassociate from any union. Otherwise, you are a slave.
We no longer have a voluntary union.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## torchbearer

> We is a pronoun. And I'm speaking as a voluntaryist here - but could you please elaborate at what point "we" did have a voluntary union?



No We in our lifetime.
But there was time between the secession from the crown, and the time it took to put in the articles of confederation where there was a voluntary union.

----------


## robert68

> Should the southern states have had the right to unilaterally seceed from the Union? I'd argue that they should have, but did not possess the contractual authority to do so. There's nothing in the Constitution that sets up procedures for state secession. And since the Constitution is merely an amending document to the Articles of Confederation *and Perpetual Union*, the provisions of the Articles would command precedence unless formally amended by the Constitution. 
> 
> No where did the Constitution amend that provision of the Articles. That implies that the only dissolution of the relationship which could come about would be by an additional clause to the original agreement, mutually consented to by all the States involved. I certainly wouldn't have signed up for any agreement stated that way (it's basically marriage as viewed by the Catholic Church). But the original thirteen states did. And by their applications to join the Union, all subsequent states also signed on the dotted line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				XIII. ... And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual ...


You left out of your quote the very relevant part that followed it:




> XIII.
> 
> Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; *nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State. 
> *


The adoption of the Constitution didn't meet that requirement.

----------


## willwash

> Except that contractually it is the end all be all. Consensually agreeing to the AOC effectively surrendered the claim to the portions of the DOI that it invalidated. That's where the damage was done. To come along at a later date and unilaterally abdicate an agreement is neither a contractual nor philospohical exercise, but rather an exercise in power. Unfortunately for the seceding southern states, they chose to exercise that power when it was insufficient to perform the deed rather than 30, 40 or 50 years earlier when they possessed sufficient power to have gotten away with it. But of course, at the earlier date they would have had to surrender control of the federation when the federation was working to their advantage.


I wasn't alive when the AOC were ratified, therefore again, I defer to Jefferson:




> The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be transmitted I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;" that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.


More at link:

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents...son/jefl81.php

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I wasn't alive when the AOC were ratified, therefore again, I defer to Jefferson:
> 
> 
> 
> More at link:
> 
> http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents...son/jefl81.php


I thoroughly agree with this, the problem is that we have maintained popular consent when we ought not to have. There can be no doubt as to the earth belonging to the living and not the dead. The living still largely consent. The irony is of course if we actually obeyed the Constitution then the U.S. (At least federal) would be largely voluntaryist in nature. The public consents to one thing, the Powers give them another thing entirely, and the public doesn't even know the difference. Now you show them what they think they have consented to, and they reject THAT in favor of the twisted and fictitious status quo. Consent to a government heretical to the Constitution has been stolen by fraud. 

So, when the people continue to consent in a lie, is it the duty of the 3% to do something? I think so, but I also think 'something' is peaceful political and such, _emphatically_ peaceful and political, until a line of certain despotic tyranny is crossed. An entirely new argument can be had over what that line is. One not best held in too public of a forum.

----------


## phill4paul

> I thoroughly agree with this, the problem is that we have maintained popular consent when we ought not to have. There can be no doubt as to the earth belonging to the living and not the dead. The living still largely consent. The irony is of course if we actually obeyed the Constitution then the U.S. (At least federal) would be largely voluntaryist in nature. The public consents to one thing, the Powers give them another thing entirely, and the public doesn't even know the difference. Now you show them what they think they have consented to, and they reject THAT in favor of the twisted and fictitious status quo. Consent to a government heretical to the Constitution has been stolen by fraud. 
> 
> So, when the people continue to consent in a lie, is it the duty of the 3% to do something? I think so, but I also think 'something' is peaceful political and such, _emphatically_ peaceful and political, until a line of certain despotic tyranny is crossed. *An entirely new argument can be had over what that line is. One not best held in too public of a forum.*


  So much for the first rule limiting government infringement of individual rights.

----------


## Pericles

> You left out of your quote the very relevant part that followed it:
> 
> 
> 
> The adoption of the Constitution didn't meet that requirement.


Which legislatures didn't ratify the Constitution?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No We in our lifetime.
> But there was time between the secession from the crown, and the time it took to put in the articles of confederation where there was a voluntary union.


It wasn't exactly a "voluntary union", IMO. That claim is what I call "winner's history".  Loyalists during the revolution were robbed of property and land as well as subject to tar and feathering/general physical attacks.  Thus, there were loads of people who either left the country to Canada or considered themselves British under American occupation.  Since then, every few generations the masses have been re-enslaved to Leviathan in one way or another.

----------


## robert68

> Which legislatures didn't ratify the Constitution?


None ratified it: 



> ...
> Also, by bypassing debate in the state legislatures, the Constitution avoided disabling amendments that states, jealous of yielding authority to a national government, would likely have attached.
> ...
> http://www.archives.gov/education/le...ification.html


The supporters made up new rules: 




> Article VII
> The ratification of the *conventions* of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

----------


## torchbearer

> It wasn't exactly a "voluntary union", IMO. That claim is what I call "winner's history".  Loyalists during the revolution were robbed of property and land as well as subject to tar and feathering/general physical attacks.  Thus, there were loads of people who either left the country to Canada or considered themselves British under American occupation.  Since then, every few generations the masses have been re-enslaved to Leviathan in one way or another.


Well, I guess the colonist could have forgone the use of armed revolution and waiting another 1000 years of educating people and maybe they would have just ignored the crown in a full fledged agorist movement. But we wouldn't be having such a discussion right now. I'd be having tea instead.

----------


## euphemia

> You're counting Missouri and Maryland as confederate states?  Huh?  (Hint.  They weren't).


Sorry, the Mason-Dixon Line ran north of Maryland.

We lost a lot of rights, thanks to Northern liberalism.  Slavery was coming to a natural end, for th emost part, when the Northern liberals insisted on a federal edict that it end immediately.

----------


## Pericles

> None ratified it: 
> 
> 
> The supporters made up new rules:


So the AoC Congress just stopped meeting on its own?

----------


## Vanguard101

Both sides were wrong on basically everything. /Discussion

----------


## The Gold Standard

I wasn't there, so I don't know why they did it. I just know Lincoln had no legal right to invade the southern states. Both governments were equally despicable, in a shocking turn of events.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well, I guess the colonist could have forgone the use of armed revolution and waiting another 1000 years of educating people and maybe they would have just ignored the crown in a full fledged agorist movement. But we wouldn't be having such a discussion right now. I'd be having tea instead.


'twould certainly have been a better fate for the colonists and the rest of humanity.  British subjugation of colonies ain't got nothing on the American style.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> Except the Union wasn't "down there" until the South first went "up there."  Lee invaded the North before the North invaded the South.


What?? I've never heard that. Can you provide evidence for this bizarre claim?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What?? I've never heard that. Can you provide evidence for this bizarre claim?


It's not.  Lincoln attacked SC over the bombing of Ft Sumter, in SC.  Lee wasn't even involved at that point.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## GunnyFreedom

You appear to have evidence of 2 states seceding on account of slavery, and then painting all 11 states with the rationale you drew from those two.  As I said up front, some states seceded over slavery, some states seceded for other reasons.  Trying to paint all 11 states with the resolution of secession from JUST Mississippi, is not only a logical fallacy, it is also collectivism.  North Carolina and Tennessee, for example, did not secede over slavery.  Mississippi and South Carolina, however, did secede over slavery.  Your attempts to bind all 11 states into a monolithic cause are built on false premises and illogical reasoning.

----------


## FloralScent

> FreedomFanatic had phrased his question so as to separate the issue of secession from the issue of the response to that secession (the war). That's something that some contingent of the liberty movement (I don't know whether it's large or small) will not allow to occur. You can see it in your own response; you are incapable of answering FreedomFanatic's question without dragging in the Federal government's response to it. That contingent of the liberty movement, seems incapable of condemning the *Slave-holding States* (a label I use because that is how they described themselves) for the rationale of their desire to secede ... SLAVERY.
> 
> If you were to be asked the same question with respect to why the American colonists seceded from England, would you say the same thing (that you didn't know because you weren't there) - or would you refer to the Declaration of Independence and the minutes of meetings and sessions that led to it? The seceding "slave-holding" states  left the same kind of audit trail of their rationale for secession. As jmdrake has pointed out it's in their declarations of causes of secession. It's also in the minutes of their secession conventions (I've been through those - it's a mind-numbing experience). And in those documents the tariff, if it's mentioned at all, is mentioned about one hundredth as much as is the issue of the slave-holding states' "peculiar institution". 
> 
> But I keep digging further to see if I can see what I'm missing. I spent part of the winter break from work going through the minutes of Mississippi's secession conventon of 1851 (abou a decade earlier than the actual secession). There was another secession convention in 1849 that I haven't dug through yet; but the minutes of November 1851 were bureaucratically mind-numbing enough. In Mississippi's resolutions was the conclusion that secession was not authorized by the Constitution:
> 
> By the same token, they did not dismiss that there were reasons that would warrant such civil revolution. And they were quite succinct in listing those reasons in the very next resolution:
> 
> You can see that the tariff is not mentioned, while slavery is front and center. And in the entirety of the minutes of that 1851 Convention, you will not find a single mention of the tariff, despite the fact that the tariff in 1851 was far more burdensome than the tariff at the time of actual secession.
> ...


West Virginia was admitted to the Union in 1863 as a slave state; Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were allowed to remain in the Union as slave states during the entire course of the war.  You no-nothings sure like to cherry pick your outrage.

----------


## Southron

Does it really matter why the South seceded? Or did it need your permission?

Perhaps all secession movements in the world should be vetted by self-righteous Yankees.

Sarcasm aside, we get bogged down too much on the causes of secession when secession itself should be the primary topic.

The war was, after all, to prevent Southern secession or Southern independence.  This cant be denied. 

Should states be prevented from leaving the Union by invasion if need be?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Does it really matter why the South seceded? Or did it need your permission?
> 
> Perhaps all secession movements in the world should be vetted by self-righteous Yankees.
> 
> Sarcasm aside, we get bogged down too much on the causes of secession when secession itself should be the primary topic.
> 
> The war was, after all, to prevent Southern secession or Southern independence.  This cant be denied. 
> 
> Should states be prevented from leaving the Union by invasion if need be?


I thought I was clear about this.  I believe the South should have been left alone and that for Lincoln to go to war to stop them was a scummy, murderous move.

But, the southern states, or at least the first seven, seceded because they wanted to keep slaves  Not to prevent federal overreach.  Both sides were awful.

----------


## Southron

> I thought I was clear about this.  I believe the South should have been left alone and that for Lincoln to go to war to stop them was a scummy, murderous move.
> 
> But, the southern states, or at least the first seven, seceded because they wanted to keep slaves  Not to prevent federal overreach.  Both sides were awful.


You make too much of the official declarations of secession. I wouldnt trust them as to the opinion of the delegates that voted for secession any more than I trust Jefferson's declaration that all men are created equal as the galvanizing force behind the revolution.

But my original point is that the underlying motivations behind secession are of much less importance than the idea of secession itself.

It is a shame that secession seems forever tied to slavery and you cant have have an honest discussion about it without it being brought up.

----------


## otherone

> But, the southern states, or at least the first seven, seceded because they wanted_ to keep slaves_  Not to prevent federal overreach.  Both sides were awful.




really?  Washington wanted to take away their slaves?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> really?  Washington wanted to take away their slaves?


A Republican was elected President and the South was worried.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You make too much of the official declarations of secession. I wouldnt trust them as to the opinion of the delegates that voted for secession any more than I trust Jefferson's declaration that all men are created equal as the galvanizing force behind the revolution.


OK, so what data do we have that would go against the official declarations?


> But my original point is that the underlying motivations behind secession are of much less importance than the idea of secession itself.
> 
> It is a shame that secession seems forever tied to slavery and you cant have have an honest discussion about it without it being brought up.


I'm with you.  Its a shame.  But the thing is, I'm on your side with regards to all of that.  I'm all for secession as a principle, regardless of why the Confederates did it.

----------


## euphemia

So, what's your point?  Do you think slavery was going to remain a permanent institution?  Do you think federal law was the best way to go about it?  The Industrial Revolution was not far away, and I think the industrialization of the south would have kept the agrarian economy while still providing jobs for those displaced by slavery.  But no, the North had to completely destroy the South, and that made more federal nonsense necessary in the form of Reconstruction.  If there had been a more natural transition as independent people gained property and income, there might not be the racial tension today blamed on slavery.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So, what's your point?  Do you think slavery was going to remain a permanent institution?  Do you think federal law was the best way to go about it?  The Industrial Revolution was not far away, and I think the industrialization of the south would have kept the agrarian economy while still providing jobs for those displaced by slavery.  But no, the North had to completely destroy the South, and that made more federal nonsense necessary in the form of Reconstruction.  If there had been a more natural transition as independent people gained property and income, there might not be the racial tension today blamed on slavery.


I am convinced that there are only a handful of people on planet Earth that actually know how to read English.  When even people here can't actually read what I'm writing...

I agree with everything you wrote there.  But, none of that proves that the south was seceding to defend "states rights" and limited government.  That is my point.

----------


## otherone

> But, none of that proves that the south was seceding to defend "states rights" and limited government.  That is my point.


Who the hell would secede for the purpose of demonstrating that you can?

----------


## euphemia

But you make it sound like everyone was a slave monger.  Not everyone was. I've done the research on my ancestors going back to when they first came to the New World.  One side of the family did not farm, and the other side of the family farmed, but since the first native-born generation they were too poor to own much of anything--especially slaves.  There were other businesses around.  The people did not necessarily want slavery.  It would have been the wealthy landowners who had access to, um, ruling class lawmakers.  Poor day laborers or dirt farmers did not have that kind of access.

----------


## The Gold Standard

Does it matter why the southern states seceded? They still should have not been invaded. Yes the disgusting Confederate government wanted to keep slavery. Did hundreds of thousands of Americans have to die because of it? Or is someone suggesting that condemning Lincoln means you support slavery? So does supporting Lincoln mean you support mass murder? Both of those governments, along with every other that has ever existed, are a disgrace to human history.

----------


## euphemia

Exactly.  

And now we have labor unions and child labor laws because the northern industrialists abused their workers.  Do we need to fight a war about that?

----------


## Southron

nm

----------


## Southron

> You appear to have evidence of 2 states seceding on account of slavery, and then painting all 11 states with the rationale you drew from those two.  As I said up front, some states seceded over slavery, some states seceded for other reasons.  Trying to paint all 11 states with the resolution of secession from JUST Mississippi, is not only a logical fallacy, it is also collectivism.  North Carolina and Tennessee, for example, did not secede over slavery.  Mississippi and South Carolina, however, did secede over slavery.  Your attempts to bind all 11 states into a monolithic cause are built on false premises and illogical reasoning.


IIRC,  South Carolina was the only southern state where a majority of whites were slaveholders. North Carolina on the other hand had heavy unionist sentiment until Lincoln required we raise troops.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But you make it sound like everyone was a slave monger.  Not everyone was. I've done the research on my ancestors going back to when they first came to the New World.  One side of the family did not farm, and the other side of the family farmed, but since the first native-born generation they were too poor to own much of anything--especially slaves.  There were other businesses around.  The people did not necessarily want slavery.  It would have been the wealthy landowners who had access to, um, ruling class lawmakers.  Poor day laborers or dirt farmers did not have that kind of access.


From what I understand of the history (which may be wrong) the poorer white people who didn't own slaves nonetheless supported slavery as an economic system for the most part.  Abolitionism was a very rare position to hold in the north, and I suspect even rarer in the south.  Not sure what "slave-monger" means exactly.

I posted this thread to ask about some stuff I encountered in study.  I wasn't trying to defend the north at all, or demonize the south.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Who the hell would secede for the purpose of demonstrating that you can?


*me: raises hand* Ooh! Ooh! I would! I would!

----------


## otherone

> *me: raises hand* Ooh! Ooh! I would! I would!


SIGH.
I guess there's one in every.._.bunch_?

----------


## jmdrake

> really?  Washington wanted to take away their slaves?


Whether Washington wanted to take away slaves or not is irrelevant.  The southern states *felt* slavery was under fire because the expansion of slavery was being curtailed and the fugitive slave act was not being enforced.

----------


## otherone

> Whether Washington wanted to take away slaves or not is irrelevant.  The southern states *felt* slavery was under fire because the expansion of slavery was being curtailed and the fugitive slave act was not being enforced.


States don't "feel".   The northern oligarchy threatened the southern oligarchy's economic power.  _ Some_ of the slave-holding states felt it in their best interest to leave the union.  Secession was a reaction to what was happening in the CAPITOL BUILDING.  * How effective would the fugitive act be if the south had seceded?*

----------


## otherone

> Whether Washington wanted to take away slaves or not is irrelevant.


1860...Did DC want to end slavery?

----------


## jmdrake

> States don't "feel".   The northern oligarchy threatened the southern oligarchy's economic power.  _ Some_ of the slave-holding states felt it in their best interest to leave the union.  Secession was a reaction to what was happening in the CAPITOL BUILDING.  * How effective would the fugitive act be if the south had seceded?*





> 1860...Did DC want to end slavery?


Are you trying to be obtuse or are you just mentally challenged?  Again, the people who signed the documents saying "This is why we are seceding" prominently mentioned lack of enforcement of the fugitive slave act and restrictions on the expansion of slavery for their reasons for wanting out.  Your "Did DC want to end slavery in 1860" question is stupid.  For want thing, you just said "States to feel."  Well capitals don't "want" either.  People in states "feel" and people in capitals "want."  Were there people in D.C. who wanted to end slavery?  Most definitely.  We're many of them anxious to go to war to end it?  Not really.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Are you trying to be obtuse or are you just mentally challenged?  Again, the people who signed the documents saying "This is why we are seceding" prominently mentioned lack of enforcement of the fugitive slave act and restrictions on the expansion of slavery for their reasons for wanting out.  Your "Did DC want to end slavery in 1860" question is stupid. * For want thing, you just said "States to feel."  Well capitals don't "want" either.  People in states "feel" and people in capitals "want."*  Were there people in D.C. who wanted to end slavery?  Most definitely.  We're many of them anxious to go to war to end it?  Not really.


This is a major pet peeve of mine as well.  It's the animist, mystical aspect of the State Religion.

----------


## otherone

> Are you trying to be obtuse or are you just mentally challenged? Again, the people who signed the documents saying "This is why we are seceding" prominently mentioned lack of enforcement of the fugitive slave act and restrictions on the expansion of slavery for their reasons for wanting out. Your "Did DC want to end slavery in 1860" question is stupid. For want thing, you just said "States to feel." Well capitals don't "want" either. People in states "feel" and people in capitals "want."


A.  No need to be insulting.
B.  Your " lack of enforcement of the fugitive slave act and restrictions on the expansion of slavery" is markedly different from FF's _the southern states, or at least the first seven, seceded because they wanted to keep slaves_.   Your explanation actually agrees with what I said.
C.  When did I mention what "capitals want"?

----------


## torchbearer

> 'twould certainly have been a better fate for the colonists and the rest of humanity.  British subjugation of colonies ain't got nothing on the American style.



Yeah, we do tyranny better. USA #1!

----------


## euphemia

> From what I understand of the history (which may be wrong) the poorer white people who didn't own slaves nonetheless supported slavery as an economic system for the most part.  Abolitionism was a very rare position to hold in the north, and I suspect even rarer in the south.


I don't know how you can prove that white non-slaveholders supported slavery as an economic system.  They might have accepted that it was part of the system, but I don't think that can be proven that they understood it or supported it from any personal values system.  The rank-and-file people did not vote on secession, and it is quite possible that they didn't know their states were doing anything.  There were families who sent their sons to both sides so hopefully one would survive, so that would indicate there was not a sense of right or wrong, but of winning and losing.

What I know is that my family suffered loss on both sides, and the citizens of the US lost a lot of rights because of Lincoln's determination to preserve the Union.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What I know is that my family suffered loss on both sides, and the citizens of the US lost a lot of rights because of Lincoln's determination to preserve the Union.


I can agree with this for sure.  Long term a southern victory probably would have been preferable.

----------


## euphemia

Slavery was not new, or unique to the US.  It was common practice to take slaves (and wives) as the spoils of war.  Poverty often led to slavery when someone could not pay a debt. 

I do not think slavery or debt was intended to be permanent.  The OT Law called for a year of Jubilee when debts were forgiven, slaves freed, and land returned to the original landowners.  I think money lenders would be less inclined to loan a lot of money if they knew all debt had to be retired every 50 years.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

*TL;DR = one major reason that the South seceded was to escape the Republicans' mercantilist economic policies*

Jefferson Davis in his inaugural address:




> An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union. It must follow, therefore, that a mutual interest would invite good will and kind offices. If, however, passion or the lust of dominion should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of those States, we must prepare to meet the emergency and to maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position which we have assumed among the nations of the earth. ...The cultivation of our fields has progressed as heretofore, and even should we be involved in war there would be no considerable diminution in the production of the staples which have constituted our exports and in which the commercial world has an interest scarcely less than our own. This common interest of the producer and consumer can only be interrupted by an exterior force which should obstruct its transmission to foreign markets--a course of conduct which would be as unjust toward us as it would be detrimental to manufacturing and commercial interests abroad. Should reason guide the action of the Government from which we have separated, a policy so detrimental to the civilized world, the Northern States included, could not be dictated by even the strongest desire to inflict injury upon us; but otherwise a terrible responsibility will rest upon it, and the suffering of millions will bear testimony to the folly and wickedness of our aggressors.


 

 From the "Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States," December 25 1860:






> The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. “The General Welfare,” is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this “General Welfare” requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776...And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue–to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures....Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated...No man can for a moment believe, that our ancestors intended to establish over their posterity, exactly the same sort of Government they had overthrown. The great object of the Constitution of the United States, in its internal operation, was, doubtless, to secure the great end of the Revolution — –a limited free Government– — a Government limited to those matters only, which were general and common to all portions of the United States. All sectional or local interests were to be left to the States. By no other arrangement, would they obtain free Government, by a Constitution common to so vast a Confederacy. Yet by gradual and steady encroachments on the part of the people of the North, and acquiescence on the part of the South, the limitations in the Constitution have been swept away; and the Government of the United States has become consolidated, with a claim of limitless powers in its operations...


 

 From the "Georgia Declaration of Secession," January 29 1861:






> The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country. But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.


 

 From Alexander Stephens "Cornerstone Address," March 21 1861:




> All the essentials of the old Constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated.... So, taking the whole new Constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment, that it is decidedly better than the old. [Applause.] Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, *which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution*, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged in


 

 From Robert Toomb's Speech before the Georgia Legislature, November 13 1860:






> The instant the Government was organized, at the very first Congress, the Northern States evinced a general desire and purpose to use it for their own benefit, and to pervert its powers for sectional advantage, and they have steadily pursued that policy to this day. They demanded a monopoly of the business of ship- building, and got a prohibition against the sale of foreign ships to citizens of the United States, which exists to this day. They demanded a monopoly of the coasting trade, in order to get higher freights than they could get in open competition with the carriers of the world. Congress gave it to them, and they yet hold this monopoly. And now, to-day, if a foreign vessel in Savannah offer[sl to take your rice, cotton, grain or lumber to New-York, or any other American port, for nothing, your laws prohibit it, in order that Northern ship-owners may get enhanced prices for doing your carrying. This same shipping interest, with cormorant rapacity, have steadily burrowed their way through your legislative halls, until they have saddled the agricultural classes with a large portion of the legitimate expenses of their own business. We pay a million of dollars per annum for the lights which guide them into and out of your ports. We built and kept up, at the cost of at least another million a year, hospitals for their sick and disabled seamen when they wear them out and cast them ashore. We pay half a million per annum to support and bring home those they cast away in foreign lands. They demand, and have received, millions of the public money to increase the safety of harbors, and lessen the danger of navigating our rivers. All of which expenses legitimately fall upon their business, and should come out of their own pockets, instead of a common treasury. Even the fishermen of Massachusetts and New England demand and receive from the public treasury about half a million of dollars per annum as a pure bounty on their business of catching codfish. The North, at the very first Congress, demanded and received bounties under the name of protection, for every trade, craft, and calling which they pursue, and there is not an artisan in brass, or iron, or wood, or weaver, or spinner in wool or cotton, or a calicomaker, or iron-master, or a coal-owner, in all of the Northern or Middle States, who has not received what he calls the protection of his government on his industry to the extent of from fifteen to two hundred per cent from the year 1791 to this day. They will not strike a blow, or stretch a muscle, without bounties from the government. No wonder they cry aloud for the glorious Union; they have the same reason for praising it, that craftsmen of Ephesus had for shouting, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians," whom all Asia and the world worshipped. By it they got their wealth; by it they levy tribute on honest labor. It is true that this policy has been largely sustained by the South; it is true that the present tariff was sustained by an almost unanimous vote of the South; but it was a reduction - a reduction necessary from the plethora of the revenue; but the policy of the North soon made it inadequate to meet the public expenditure, by an enormous and profligate increase of the public expenditure; and at the last session of Congress they brought in and passed through the House the most atrocious tariff bill that ever was enacted, raising the present duties from twenty to two hundred and fifty per cent above the existing rates of duty. That bill now lies on the table of the Senate. It was a master stroke of abolition policy; it united cupidity to fanaticism, and thereby made a combination which has swept the country. There were thousands of protectionists in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New-York, and in New-England, who were not abolitionists. There were thousands of abolitionists who were free traders. The mongers brought them together upon a mutual surrender of their principles. The free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists. The result of this coalition was the infamous Morrill bill - the robber and the incendiary struck hands, and united in joint raid against the South. Thus stands the account between the North and the South. Under its ordinary and most favorable action, bounties and protection to every interest and every pursuit in the North, to the extent of at least fifty millions per annum, besides the expenditure of at least sixty millions out of every seventy of the public expenditure among them, thus making the treasury a perpetual fertilizing stream to them and their industry, and a suction-pump to drain away our substance and parch up our lands.


 

 In a little known fact, New York City almost seceded along with the South. Why? From a speech by New York City Mayor Fernando Wood, January 6 1861:




> It would seem that a dissolution of the Federal Union is inevitable...With our aggrieved brethren of the Slave States, we have friendly relations and a common sympathy...Our ships have penetrated to every clime, and so have New York capital, energy and enterprise found their way to every State, and, indeed, to almost every county and town of the American Union. If we have derived sustenance from the Union, so have we in return disseminated blessings for the common benefit of all. Therefore, New York has a right to expect, and should endeavor to preserve a continuance of uninterrupted intercourse with every section...As a free city, with but nominal duty on imports, her local Government could be supported without taxation upon her people. Thus we could live free from taxes, and have cheap goods nearly duty free. In this she would have the whole and united support of the Southern States, as well as all the other States to whose interests and rights under the Constitution she has always been true.


 

Comments from Lord Action, great English classical liberal and contemporary of the American Civil War:






> Thus it came to pass that the South, to protect themselves, sought to restrain the central power, while the North wished to make it superior to all restraint. To one party it was a sword, to the other a shield. And so it happened that the long reign of Southern politics at Washington, down to the year 1860, provoked no rupture, because they desired self-government, and not empire; whereas the victory of the North in the election of Mr. Lincoln gave at once the signal for dissolving the Union...At length certain measures for the protection of manufactures in the East aroused a united opposition in the agricultural states, who were to pay for the benefit of the others. That was the first threatening of the storm that did not burst for thirty years...Further, [in the Confederate Constitution] definite safeguards were provided against the abuses which had sapped liberty in the Union. One of these was the imposition of taxes for the advantage of interests which were confined to certain states, and at the expense of the others. Therefore it was enacted that "no bounties shall be granted from the treasury, nor shall any duties or taxes on importations be levied to promote or foster any branch of industry." One great means of throwing influence into the hands of the central government had been internal improvements. It was enacted that they should never be carried out by the Confederate government. Finally, the abuse of patronage had furnished the President with such opportunities for corruption that I have heard as many as 60,000 offices changed hands as often as a term expired. It was enacted that none but cabinet ministers should be removed from office without the cause of the removal being submitted to the Senate. These were the political ideas of the Confederacy, and they justify me, I think, in saying that history can show no instance of so great an effort made by republicans to remedy the faults of that form of government.


 

 Lord Action's letter to Robert E. Lee in 1866:






> Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.


 

 Now let's compare the CSA Constitution with the USA Constitution, and see how the Southern design differs and what that tells us about the South's motives:



*Preamble:*


*USA:* "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

*CSA:* "We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America. 

*Comments:* The CSA Constitution omits reference to ":the general welfare" because that clause had been abused to justify the Republicans' mercantilist policy. Further note the emphasis on the "sovereign and independent character" of the states.

*Article I, Section 2*

Here the CSA Constitution adds the following clause, which has no parallel in the US Constitution:*

CSA:* "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment; except that any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof. *

Comments:* This is in effect a formalized right to nullification, which is informed by South Carolina's experience with the "Tariff of Abominations" in earlier decades, when the State government threatened to jail any federal official who enforced the hated tax.  
*
Article I, Section 8*


*USA:* "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

*CSA:* "To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.

*Comments:* Once again, the CSA Constitution excludes the "general welfare" clause because of its potential for abuse, while it adds a clause that specifically prohibits the central government from subsidizing private industry – a major feature of the Republicans' mercantilist policy.

*USA:* "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

*CSA*: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof."

*Comments*: Again, a clause specifically prohibiting the central government from spending money on subsidies for private industry.  



*Article I, Section 9*


Several clauses were added to this section of the CSA Constitution which have no parallel in the US Constitution:

*CSA:* "Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish."

*Comments:* A check on federal spending.



*CSA:* "All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered...Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."

*Comments:* A reaction to the cronyism inherent in the Republicans' mercantilism.  



*USA:* "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years..."

*CSA:* "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the Confederate States of America. He and the Vice President shall hold their offices for the term of six years; but the President shall not be reeligible..."

*Comments:* Again, a reaction to corruption in the federal government (single-term limit removes the incentive to buy the support of cronies for the purpose of winning re-election).



*Article V*


*USA:* "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

*CSA:* "Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention, voting by States, and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two- thirds of the several States, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention, they shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution. But no State shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate."

*Comments:* Congress plays no role in the amendment process, all the amending power rests with the States: in keeping with the general reduction of the role of the federal government.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

+rep for Rev 3^^

----------


## r3volution 3.0

These are excerpts from Northern newspaper articles, reacting to secession. They demonstrate what Northerners thought secession was all about. 

From an editorial in the _New York Evening Post_, March 12 1861:




> There are some difficulties attending the collection of the revenue  in the seceding states which it will be well to look at attentively.  That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of  the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from  abroad, it is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done,  our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply  our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the  government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn  is ripe. . . . Allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the  low duty of ten percent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy  think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be  imported at New York; the railways would be supplied from the southern  ports. What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding  states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or  will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for  these ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors, as  contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts  from which our authorities have been expelled? Or will the president  call a special session of Congress to do what the last unwisely failed  to doto abolish all ports of entry in the seceding states?


From an editorial in the _New Haven Daily Register_, February 11 1861:




> There never was a more ill-timed, injudicious and destructive  measure proposed, (so far as northern interests are concerned) than the  Morrill tariff bill, now pending before  Congress. It proposes to greatly increase the duties on all imported  goods, and in many articles to carry up the increase to the prohibitory  point . . . so that while Congress is raising the duties for the  Northern ports, the Southern Convention is doing away with all import  duties for the Southern ports. . . . More than three fourths of the  seafront of the Atlantic States extending from the Chesapeake  inclusive, to the furtherest boundary of Texas, would be beyond the  reach of our Congress tariff. Their ports would invite the free trade of the world! And what would the high tariff be worth to us then, with only a one-fourth fragment of our former seacoast left?


From an editorial in the _Boston Transcript_, March 18 1861:




> It does not require extraordinary sagacity to perceive that trade is  perhaps the controlling motive operating to prevent the return of the  seceding states to the Union which they have abandoned. Alleged  grievances in regard to slavery were originally the causes for  separation of the cotton states; but the mask has been thrown off and it  is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now  for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can  be changed from Northern to Southern ports. The merchants of New  Orleans, Charleston and Savannah are possessed with the idea that New  York, Boston, and Philadelphia may be shorn, in the future, of their  mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging on free trade. If the  Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a  nominal duty is laid upon imports, no doubt the business of the chief  Northern cities will be seriously injured thereby. The difference is so  great between the tariff of the Union and  that of the Confederate States that the entire Northwest must find it  to their advantage to purchase their imported goods at New Orleans  rather than New York. In addition to this, the manufacturing interests  of the country will suffer from the increased importation resulting from  low duties. . . . The [government] would be false to its obligations if  this state of things were not provided against


*All from Henry Perkins' "Northern Editorials on Secession," Vol. II

----------


## r3volution 3.0

*The Elephant in the Room - What About Slavery?*

 It's impossible to deny that slavery was a factor in the decision of the South to secede, but in my opinion it was an extremely minor one. Slavery is a prominent theme in the secession documents, it's true, but the fact is that there was no threat to slavery in 1861, and so protecting slavery would not have been a rational motive for secession.  


The Republican Party was not     abolitionist. The abolitionists were a radical minority within the     Republican Party. Lincoln himself repeatedly promised not to seek     the abolition of slavery. He was never an abolitionist at any point.     Lincoln, in an effort to reverse the secession movement, even     promised the South a Constitutional amendment in 1861 that would     have more explicitly and     permanently preserved slavery.But, even if we suppose that the     Republican Party would have sought abolition if they had the chance,     they didn't have that chance. Abolition would have required a     constitutional amendment, which would have required ratification by     3/4th of the states. In 1861, there were 34 states in the     union, 15 of which were slave-holding. Thus, there were nowhere near     enough free states to pass a constitutional amendment abolishing     slavery. To get a  3/4th majority against slavery,  26     additional free states would have had to have been admitted to the     union (45/60). Note that this is 10 more states that _currently_     exist! If the Republicans had been trying to outmaneuver the South     in this cumbersome fashion, they'd _still_ be working on it!     It's true that the Republicans had been trying to prevent the spread     of slavery into the Western territories, but this was not about     trying to gain a 3/4th majority of free states for the     purpose of abolishing slavery. It was about keeping blacks out of     the West (the Republicans were extreme segregationists in their own     right).What about the fugitive slave     clause? It's often mentioned that the Northern states ignored this     constitutional obligation and thus helped undermine slavery –     angering the South. That's true, but that doesn't provide a motive     for secession. As long as they were in the union, the slave-holding     states could pressure the free states to honor the fugitive slave     clause. Outside the union? The Northern states are part of a foreign     country, with no obligations whatsoever to return freed slaves. This     motive makes no sense. 

 Henry Clay had the same opinion – secession to preserve slavery makes no sense. From "_Henry Clay's Last Speech_," The Alexandria Gazette, 10 April 1861:




> three of the major problems that the South had with the North -namely, the latter's attempts to outlaw slavery in Washington, D.C., to outlaw it in the territories, and their abuse of the fugitive slave law - would all be multiplied by the separation of the two halves of the nation. Disunion would cause the South to lose any power it previously held to ensure the survival of slavery in the territories and in D.C...Also, if the North were a separate country, free from slavery, many more slaves would run and certainly would not be returned...the South's influence over both the fugitive slave law and the question of slavery in the territories would be lost because of disunion


 IN SUMMARY: There's no denying that slavery was a source of tension between North and South. One of the South's major grievances against the North was the failure to honor the fugitive slave clause, and their resistance to the spread of slavery into the West. This conflict made cooperation on other fronts (like economic policy) more difficult. Slavery was definitely on the minds of Southerners as they debated secession in 1861 – as evidenced by the secession documents. HOWEVER,  secession would have not protected slavery (quite the opposite), and the South knew this perfectly well – and so protecting slavery cannot have been the actual goal which they sought to achieve through secession. By way of analogy, you might say that ideological differences contributed to the tensions between Japan and the US in the 1930s and 1940s, and thus in some sense could be called a cause of the war, but neither side actually went to war for those ideological reasons.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Again, the people who signed the documents saying "This is why we are seceding" prominently mentioned lack of enforcement of the fugitive slave act and restrictions on the expansion of slavery for their reasons for wanting out.


Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina, sure.  Tennessee and North Carolina, not so much.  Each State had their own reasons for secession, and they were all different.  NC and TN had no serious interest in defending slavery, and even Robert E. Lee of Virginia was....at least _nominally_....an abolitionist.  Not really trying to dispute most of your overall points here, but the reasons for secession were not monolithic.  I know that slavery was _not_ actually a factor in NC's decision to secede, but Lincoln marching troops across NC to attack SC without our permission is what popped our cork.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## Southron

> Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina, sure.  Tennessee and North Carolina, not so much.  Each State had their own reasons for secession, and they were all different.  NC and TN had no serious interest in defending slavery, and even Robert E. Lee of Virginia was....at least _nominally_....an abolitionist.  Not really trying to dispute most of your overall points here, but the reasons for secession were not monolithic.  I know that slavery was _not_ actually a factor in NC's decision to secede, but Lincoln marching troops across NC to attack SC without our permission is what popped our cork.


I wish that spirit of secession was still as strong here.  So much has been lost over the past 150+ years.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I wish that spirit of secession was still as strong here.  So much has been lost over the past 150+ years.


LOL I know right?  But we don't even need THAT much.  Just some shred of freaking dignity please, and stop rolling over for the Feds anytime they say 'hop on one foot' and start hopping.

----------


## otherone

> Isn't that a contradiction?


HAH!
BUSTED!

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

Every state had its own reason for wanting separation from the union. For some Confederate states, slavery was a major issue, yes. For others, not so much.

People who say tariffs were low at the time of secession are mixing the overall gestalt of the pro-Confederate narrative. The long, bitter "Tariff War" that had gone on had disproportionately helped Northern industry and penalized Southern consumers. The division that caused was increasingly irreconcilable. Tariffs may have been (comparatively) low at the time, but what tariffs did exist were still unfairly hurting Southerners, and the damage had already been done to their economy. As far as the South was concerned, the government was a tool of the Northern business class that had been inflicting itself on the South since the Jeffersonians were knocked out of the white house by the Hamiltonians. 

I'm not in favor of slavery, but I am in favor of the political unit being decentralized to be as close to the organic community as possible. Now, obviously the CSA was not remotely close to this organic unit, but it was certainly _closer_ for Southerners than when they were under the yolk of the North.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> I wish that spirit of secession was still as strong here.  So much has been lost over the past 150+ years.


Maybe because the one serious attempt at secession is associated with slavery and racism?

----------


## dulci

I have heard something said about allegiance to the South. I know no South, no North, no East, no West, to which I owe any allegiance... The Union, sir, is my country. 
_-Henry Clay ,Speech in the US Senate, 1848_

----------


## Ronin Truth

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...84.M5kSIDYK948

----------


## FloralScent

> Maybe because the one serious attempt at secession is associated with slavery and racism?


God forbid people have opinions that don't conform with the NWOs teachings.   Freedom of association?  $#@! that, and $#@! your property rights while we're at it.   Libertarians my ass.  Half the movement's nothing but a Communist front.

----------


## FloralScent

> I have heard something said about allegiance to the South. I know no South, no North, no East, no West, to which I owe any allegiance... The Union, sir, is my country. 
> _-Henry Clay ,Speech in the US Senate, 1848_


S.P.Q.R. motherfuckers!

----------


## PierzStyx

The Civil War was slave nation vs. slave nation; the US had slave states the entirety of the war.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> God forbid people have opinions that don't conform with the NWOs teachings.   Freedom of association?  $#@! that, and $#@! your property rights while we're at it.   Libertarians my ass.  Half the movement's nothing but a Communist front.


Communist front?  What are you smoking?

----------


## Weston White

As noted by Mr. Churchill: _History is written by the victors._

First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln (1861)




> I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
> 
> I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.


Corwin Amendment:


The very concept of Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation did not arrive until 1863, an afterthought of desperation intended to turn the tide of his losing wareffectively inspiring male slaves to stop working for the Rebels to flee and join the Federal Army to fight for their freedom:




> By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom.


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/fea..._proclamation/

The underlying cause for the Civil War was advantaging the industrious North above the agricultural South, with taxation, and the abhorred Morrill Tariff:




> The well known novelist Charles Dickens used his magazine, All the Year Round, to attack the new tariff. On December 28, 1861 Dickens published a lengthy article, believed to be written by Henry Morley, which blamed the American Civil War on the Morrill Tariff:
> 
> If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived  The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union  So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils... [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.





> Robert Barnwell Rhett similarly railed against the then-pending Morrill Tariff before the South Carolina convention. Rhett included a lengthy attack on tariffs in the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.
> 
> And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenueto promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.





> In one such example the New York Times, which had previously opposed Morrills bill on free trade grounds, editorialized that the tariff imbalance would bring commercial ruin to the North and urged its suspension until the secession crisis passed. We have imposed high duties on our commerce at the very moment the seceding states are inviting commerce to their ports by low duties. As secession became more evident and the fledgling Confederacy adopted a much lower tariff of its own, the paper urged military action to enforce the Morrill Tariff in the Southern states.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff


Noting that many other nations had successfully abolished slavery without first the need for civil wars or secession.

----------


## Todd

> Huh?


Yeah....he's got me on that one too.  

Nevermind I live in the heart of Civil War country and there are like 50 battlefields all happening long before Lee ever tried to venture into Yankee territory.

----------


## AuH20

http://mises.org/library/lincolns-tariff-war




> Returning victorious to his home of Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln attended a Republican Party rally that included "an immense wagon" bearing a gigantic sign reading "Protection for Home Industry."* Lincoln’s (and the Republican Party’s) economic guru, Pennsylvania steel industry publicist/lobbyist Henry C. Carey, declared that without a high protectionist tariff, "Mr. Lincoln’s administration will be dead before the day of inauguration."*
> 
> *The U.S. House of Representatives had passed the Morrill tariff in the 1859-1860 session, and the Senate passed it on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration. President James Buchanan, a Pennsylvanian who owed much of his own political success to Pennsylvania protectionists, signed it into law. The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent (according to Frank Taussig in Tariff History of the United States) to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent, Taussig writes.
> *
> So, Lincoln owed everything--his nomination and election--to Northern protectionists, especially the ones in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He was expected to be the enforcer of the Morrill tariff. Understanding all too well that the South Carolina  tariff nullifiers had foiled the last attempt to impose a draconian protectionist tariff on the nation by voting in political convention not to collect the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations," Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected.
> 
> *At the time, Taussig says, the import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being spent in the North. The South was being plundered by the tax system and wanted no more of it. Then along comes Lincoln and the Republicans, tripling (!) the rate of tariff taxation (before the war was an issue). Lincoln then threw down the gauntlet in his first inaugural: "The power confided in me," he said, "will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion--no using force against, or among the people anywhere" (emphasis added).*
> 
> "We are going to make tax slaves out of you," Lincoln was effectively saying, "and if you resist, there will be an invasion." That was on March 4. Five weeks later, on April 12, Fort Sumter, a tariff collection point in Charleston Harbor, was bombarded by the Confederates. No one was hurt or killed, and Lincoln later revealed that he manipulated the Confederates into firing the first shot, which helped generate war fever in the North.

----------


## William Tell

> Yeah....he's got me on that one too.  
> 
> Nevermind I live in the heart of Civil War country and there are like 50 battlefields all happening long before Lee ever tried to venture into Yankee territory.


Yeah, well, DC is kinda near Virginia. So Virginians defending their state from Federal aggression were being scary to poor Mister Lincoln.

----------


## paleocon1

> I wish it was true that the Confederacy had seceded over "states rights" and not over slavery.................


What really sparked the secession was a doubling of the tariff. Dishonest Abe was willing to protect slavery forever as long as the South continued to fund the national government thru that tariff.

----------


## Pericles

> I have heard something said about allegiance to the South. I know no South, no North, no East, no West, to which I owe any allegiance... The Union, sir, is my country. 
> _-Henry Clay ,Speech in the US Senate, 1848_


Which probably explains why he lost 5 presidential elections.

----------


## JohnGalt1225

> Maybe because the one serious attempt at secession is associated with slavery and racism?


So what? Just because a group of people *allegedly* used a principle for evil ends, does not make that principle wrong.

As for slavery and the Civil War, I feel each state had their own reasons for secession. I do not the slaves were very truly freed, we have all just been enslaved equally by the state.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> So what? Just because a group of people *allegedly* used a principle for evil ends, does not make that principle wrong.
> 
> As for slavery and the Civil War, I feel each state had their own reasons for secession. I do not the slaves were very truly freed, we have all just been enslaved equally by the state.


I support the right of secession, but the principle has been tarnished in the minds of the American people.

----------

