I'll Take my Stand- Causes of Southern Secession- the Cotton States

[longstreetsredemption]

I can go on and on and copy each of the southern states declarations for succeeding to make my point, but you will see that they all say the same thing. They all used slavery as their cause. This is fact and not some southern historians wishful thinking. The proponents of the "Lost Cause" want to view the ACW as a noble war fought for state's rights; however, they conveniently leave out that the issue of slavery, expansion of slave states, and the capture of runaway slaves from other states as the reason for succeeding. Why? Well, they would not want to be known as supporting that "peculiar" institution.

[stonewalljackson]

We really need a multi quote button. Could you in the future please keep your comments all on one post so I can quote them as one response.

Straight from the horses mouth............

South Carolina's secessionist declaration enacted upon the election of Abraham Lincoln. Adopted on Christmas Eve 1860, it in pretty blunt terms demands secession on the grounds of slavery:

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

"... A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that 'Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,' and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."

I agree your speaking right out of a horses mouth . I also now see your intentions and purpose, not as to find truth, but to argue against my position. Otherwise you would have read my op and considered/ responded to it. I do thank you for your interest though.


So a response to the above i would say you have been misleading by being very selective and also ignoring context of southern secession. Not to mention lets pretend south carolina left the union to keep slavery and that was it, that would at the most prove south carolina left the union over slavery, not the confederacy. But even so if you would read under my op about half way down read under Slavery's Impact On Southern Secession. That will give a better context. But even more so read under Western States Free or Slave? Slavery was not the Cause but the Occasion/ States Rights . That will than give the context and understanding of the issue of slavery/states rights in the cotton states. I think when you remove it from its historical context, you than can be mislead.

South Carolina secession document in full
avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

As i point out in my op South Carolina was the first state to seceded from the union, It being a deep south “cotton state” gives the reasons for secession. If read in full it gives a good example of slavery as a states rights issue. Slavery was an occasion that states rights were fought over, not the sole cause. The cause of dissolving the union is given right off the bat “Declared that the frequent violations of the constitution by the united sates, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union.” The document is a states rights succession document. The writers of the document wanted that to stand out, that is why the first thing noticed at a glance of the document you will see “FREE AND INDEPENDANT STATES” capitalized three times in the document to stand out. South Carolina was also letting it be known in their declaration of Independence, that it was “FREE AND INDEPANDANT STATES” and state rights, that they were declaring independence. The document goes into the history of states rights in America mentions the failure of the federal government in upholding the constitution and its interfering with states rights. South Carolina said if they were to stay in the union the “constitution will then no longer exists, equal rights of the states will be lost” and that the federal government would become its enemy. While slavery is mentioned four or five times, states rights, independent state, and state sovereignty is mentioned sixteen times. States rights are mentioned not in connection with slavery, yet slavery is always mentioned in connection with states rights. Just as southern democrats had been saying for decades in there political party planks, an attack on slavery was an attack on states rights. Just as South Carolina when it first threatened to success was over states rights, that time [1830's] over tariffs, not slavery.

[stonewalljackson]

By the way, South Carolina then started the war by opening fire in Charleston on Fort Sumter when Lincoln was sending food provisions to the fort.

Also, why didn't Britain or France join up with the Confederates as J. Davis so desperately wanted? They were against slavery and thus stated this as their cause not to entertain Davis' diplomatic efforts.

First section another thread so I wont comment here. Why did britian not join, well because they did not want a war with the most powerful nation in the world. They were not against slavery in the csa, they loved the idea of free trade the csa offered, they loved cotton. SO I think your mistaken. They "liked" the north who had slavery until after the civil war. Also europe did not see this war as being fought over slavery in any way see op under Europe's Opinion.

[stonewalljackson]

I can go on and on and copy each of the southern states declarations for succeeding to make my point, but you will see that they all say the same thing. They all used slavery as their cause. This is fact and not some southern historians wishful thinking. The proponents of the "Lost Cause" want to view the ACW as a noble war fought for state's rights; however, they conveniently leave out that the issue of slavery, expansion of slave states, and the capture of runaway slaves from other states as the reason for succeeding. Why? Well, they would not want to be known as supporting that "peculiar" institution.

They [northern historians] all used slavery as their cause. This is fact and not some northern historians wishful thinking. The proponents of the "Lost Cause" want to view the ACW as a noble crusade to end slavery however, they conveniently leave out historical reality and context.

The Lincoln Myth and the causes of the American Civil war
http://www.norbsoftdev.net/forum/the-am ... -civil-war



You could copy them, or you could quote them all in full, in their historical context, and come to a proper understanding but i dont think you want that. I quoted 6 state secession documents that dont even mention slavery in my op. In fact of the 13 I think you will find only 4 mention slavery as a cause, among others, for secession south carolina included. Of those you will find if put in their historical context as I had done in my op, slavery was

Slavery, although the occasion, was not the producing cause of dissolution”
-Rose Oneal Greehow- My improvement and the first year of abolition Rule in Washington 1863

for more please see under Western States Free or Slave? Slavery was not the Cause but the Occasion/ States Rights.


Those issues you brought up expansion of slavery out west, runaway slaves and the violation of returning property to its owner etc, have all been responded to in my op. So once more I beg you to read my op before rejecting and arguing against it. So this is where you either must refute/respond what i have said, or come up with another argument.

[longstreetsredemption]

I will agree that we disagree. I meant no disrepect. That's what I love about the ACW, it means something different to everybody. I can not sit here and say that my opinion is better than yours. I can see you spend a lot of time researching your opinion and that should be commended.

[stonewalljackson]

I will agree that we disagree. I meant no disrepect. That's what I love about the ACW, it means something different to everybody. I can not sit here and say that my opinion is better than yours. I can see you spend a lot of time researching your opinion and that should be commended.

Thanks but i would not want this historical discussion to degrade into relativism. It is not a matter of one "opinion" vs another or what it "means to us" whatever that is. This should be a discussion on what is true or what is not true, what is historically accurate or not. Our opinions don't mean a damn thing. Either something is true historically or it is not.

[longstreetsredemption]

ha! good luck with that.