Lincoln's War

[glockmail]

And yet most of the States that left SPECIFICALLY listed Slavery as the State right they were leaving for. Explain that to us ohh revisionist one.

They had politicians back then who knew how to exploit an emotional issue.

 

[editec]

I am once again going to argue that the Civil War, or more accurately the War Between the States, was not fought over the issue of slavery. I don’t expect to change anybody’s mind, but hopefully this won’t be dismissed outright. I believe that the war between the states was fought over tariffs, as I’ve said before.

I'll gladly agree that tariffs were part of the issue. But again, I'll ask you what had changed so significantly in 1860 or 61 that prompted the Southern States to decide to go to war then?

Lincoln did not recognize the right of the southern states to secede from the Union, and fully intended to wage the Civil War if the southern states would not pay the tariffs and taxes he felt they still owed to the federal government. He stated this in his first Inaugural Address.

“In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me 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 of force against or among the people anywhere.” – Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

Good point. So the Southerners objected to paying 48% tariff on imported goods.

The Confederacy “fired the first shots” when they attacked Fort Sumter in South Carolina, this is a historical fact. However, let’s look at the context of why they attacked Fort Sumter. The south did not attack Fort Sumter until Lincoln attempted to re-supply the fort. Lincoln knew they would not stand for this, because he refused to meet with the Confederacy’s delegates when Jefferson Davis sent them to Washington to attempt to pay for the south’s portion of the national debt and to purchase any federal property left in the south.

And you're of the opinion that the Union didn't have the right to resupply its own military?

Interesting position to take.

Lincoln deliberately attempted to re-supply Fort Sumter knowing that the Confederacy would never allow that to happen. Since we have established that Lincoln had every intention of waging war against the south, we can assume that he wanted to provoke the Confederates into attacking first.

So a POTUS doing something perfectly legal was a provocation in your mind, was it?

The reason for this is because a majority of Americans would have, and did, believe in the right of secession. The New England states held a convention to decide whether it would be in their best interest to secede in 1814. They did not debate whether they had the right to do so, and James Madison did not attempt to stop them in any way. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed in the right of secession, as evidenced by their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. The mayor of New York City wanted to secede from the Union and the state of New York because he realized that protectionism was going to hurt his city the same as it hurt the south.

Yes, nobody argues that treasonous plots existed before the Southern treason.

Lincoln needed the south to attack first because he knew that nobody would support his war otherwise. He wanted to invoke the patriotism and national pride of the northern states, and he needed the south to attack for that to happen.

then how terribly foolish of the people of Couth Carolina to give him what he wanted, don't you think?

The south fought in the war between the states because they believed in their right of self-governance. They believed in this American tradition as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

I believe in the right of self governance too. I think I'll move to South Carolina and declare aq self government for myself.

If the people of SC object, that means they must they hate freedom.

“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 the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

Great! I don't recognize the right of any government to tell me what to do.

That means that I can, or you can, or anybody can, morally fire upon police, state or federal whenever it suits us, right?

Is THAT what you're telling us?

While I am aware that the Declaration has no legal authority, it has the moral authority of the men who founded our nation. The founders believed in the right of self-governance, and it was on that belief that the south chose to secede from a government that they believed was no longer looking out for their best interests. Also, the Constitution does not prohibit the states from seceding, and under the 10th Amendment they retain the right to leave if they wish.

Why stop at the states? What if I think my town should be an indpendent nation, too. Is that okay?

The south fought for their independence in the Civil War, no less than the colonies fought for their independence in the Revolutionary War. Lincoln waged the Civil War to force the south back into the Union so that they could pay the tariffs he fully intended to force on them.

A little less....they lost.

I know this issue has been discussed many times over on this board, but I hope that some of you are interested in my argument.

It's a good argument.

But sadly, the moral position you take makes no sense whatever.

If the states can break away and be moral, then the countries can break away from the states. And the towns from the counties, and the neighborhoods from the towns, and the people from the neighborhoods.

All the above flows from the theory that people have the right not to be governed, you know.

Sadly, reality suggests that the free and indepndent nation of EDITIC isn't likely to survive.

Just as the CSA didn't survive.

 

[Red Dawn]

The assertion that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery is a shop worn mythology promoted by neoconfederates and klansman, to a large extent. A lot of otherwise decent minded southerners buy into it to.

If you can't change or influence the policies of the government through our democratic institutions, or through peaceful protest and peaceful civil disobedience, and choose instead to seceed and take up arms, you're a traitor. Pure and simple. Martin Luther King did more for the south, than the confederates ever did.

The confederates were the worst traitors in american history. The constitution fully authorizes the federal government to put down rebellions. The confederae traitors have a lot of blood on their hands.

Look, everyone who had a competent high school history class knows that initially, lincoln wasn't trying to abolish slavery in the south. Why is that even being brought up? Everyone with a standard education knows that. And everyone knows the issues were complex, but at its heart the issue was the expansion of slavery into new states - whether or not it would be prohibited. And the south knew if slavery was prohibited in the new states, the writing was on the wall their their days of the slave economy were numbered.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read it and weep.

and

Lots more there. Including South Carolina's excuse for leaving.

Very interesting. It would seem I need to concede the point that slavery, or more accurately the Fugitive Slave Act, was not a reason for the secession of the Confederates.

I still hold that tariffs were a major factor, however. As evidenced by Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address and the Confederate Constitution. I also still contend that it was Lincoln's War, and that secession is a legitimate right under the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am wondering if the lastest generation thinks that if it is not posted on the Net it must not be true?

Not at all, if he would have cited a book I would have attempted to find a cheap copy or I would have checked my library. However, I didn't doubt for a minute that the information would, or at least could, be found on the internet.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'll gladly agree that tariffs were part of the issue. But again, I'll ask you what had changed so significantly in 1860 or 61 that prompted the Southern States to decide to go to war then?

The southern states did not decide to go to war, Lincoln did.

Good point. So the Southerners objected to paying 48% tariff on imported goods.

The point was that Lincoln intended to force the Confederate states to continue to pay taxes and tariffs, and was willing to go to war over it.

And you're of the opinion that the Union didn't have the right to resupply its own military?

Interesting position to take.

The fort was located in the Confederate States of America, Lincoln had no right to have a fort in their country.

So a POTUS doing something perfectly legal was a provocation in your mind, was it?

It certainly was provocation, as he knew what would happen. He knew that the Confederates did not want Union forts or military bases in their borders and belligerently tried to re-supply Fort Sumter rather than trying to be diplomatic.

Yes, nobody argues that treasonous plots existed before the Southern treason.

It wasn't treason, it was the American tradition of self-governance. Our founding fathers fought a war of secession against Great Britain, and Timothy Pickering stated that secession was the very principle of the Revolution.

then how terribly foolish of the people of Couth Carolina to give him what he wanted, don't you think?

Sure.

I believe in the right of self governance too. I think I'll move to South Carolina and declare aq self government for myself.

If the people of SC object, that means they must they hate freedom.

You would still be within South Carolina's borders, however. That might be perceived as an invasion.

Great! I don't recognize the right of any government to tell me what to do.

That means that I can, or you can, or anybody can, morally fire upon police, state or federal whenever it suits us, right?

Is THAT what you're telling us?

I don't condone violence.

Why stop at the states? What if I think my town should be an indpendent nation, too. Is that okay?

The mayor of New York City thought that seceding from the state of New York would be a good idea, he felt, like the Confederates, that free trade would benefit his city more than protectionism would.

A little less....they lost.

They had no foreign help.

It's a good argument.

But sadly, the moral position you take makes no sense whatever.

If the states can break away and be moral, then the countries can break away from the states. And the towns from the counties, and the neighborhoods from the towns, and the people from the neighborhoods.

All the above flows from the theory that people have the right not to be governed, you know.

Sadly, reality suggests that the free and indepndent nation of EDITIC isn't likely to survive.

Just as the CSA didn't survive.

The state and local examples you give would not be covered by the Constitution of the United States. However, the free and independent states created this Union for their own benefit, and when it became destructive towards their liberty and property (Meaning their money) they had the right to leave that compact and form one better suited to their interests.

When two states decided not to ratify the Constitution they retained their independence and sovereignty, they weren't forced into the new Union. They acted as independent nations. When the southern states seceded they didn't delve into tyranny or anarchy, their elected state governments simply set up another Union to better serve them.

 

[Xenophon]

No, abolitionists were not "winning the hearts and mind of the US." The north was still a very racist place, and probably more dangerous for black people than the south was.

You don't understand, I didn't say they were saying blacks would have equal rights, they were saying that slavery was morally wrong.

You can be anti-slavery and still be a racist bigot who thinks others are inferior, Lincoln himself is of this view.

Tryinmg to claim the civil war was about anything but the South's attempts to continue a dying tradition of slavery is the worst kind of historical revisionism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You don't understand, I didn't say they were saying blacks would have equal rights, they were saying that slavery was morally wrong.

You can be anti-slavery and still be a racist bigot who thinks others are inferior, Lincoln himself is of this view.

Tryinmg to claim the civil war was about anything but the South's attempts to continue a dying tradition of slavery is the worst kind of historical revisionism.

Except that abolitionists did believe that blacks should have equal rights. Real abolitionists, such as Lysander Spooner, hated Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln was anti-slavery because he wanted free white men to be paid to do the slaves' work. He did not, however, originally intend to end slavery. His support of a Constitutional amendment to make slavery permanent is evidence enough of that.

Then read Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address and the Confederate Constitution, both are evidence of the south's distaste for the protectionist policies of the federal government.

 

[Xenophon]

As has already been pointed out, the states that left the Union stated it was over the slavery issue, which was an honest reason, ol Jeff davis appears to speak to history in the hopes that his reasons would seem noble.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As has already been pointed out, the states that left the Union stated it was over the slavery issue, which was an honest reason, ol Jeff davis appears to speak to history in the hopes that his reasons would seem noble.

I see.

Then they must have just prohibited tariffs in their Constitution to "seem noble" as well, right?

 

[Xenophon]

You can try all you like to rewrite history, but it won't change.

The fact is the south left the Union over what it percieved as the end of it's way of life, which was plantations supported by slave labor.

You can serch high and low for some other reson but that is the crux of it, it's also why Britian and France never offically recognized the South even though they gave it material support, their own populations had abolished slavery and would have been angered about it. (after the civil war the British paid a huge indemnity to the United States to cover the damages inflicted by English raiders that flew Confederate flags)

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You can try all you like to rewrite history, but it won't change.

The fact is the south left the Union over what it percieved as the end of it's way of life, which was plantations supported by slave labor.

You can serch high and low for some other reson but that is the crux of it, it's also why Britian and France never offically recognized the South even though they gave it material support, their own populations had abolished slavery and would have been angered about it. (after the civil war the British paid a huge indemnity to the United States to cover the damages inflicted by English raiders that flew Confederate flags)

I'm not rewriting history, I'm simply looking at the facts. You are blatantly ignoring facts that say that slavery was not the only reason that the south left the Union.

 

[Red Dawn]

I'm not rewriting history, I'm simply looking at the facts. You are blatantly ignoring facts that say that slavery was not the only reason that the south left the Union.

That's not what you said in your first post. You said slavery wasn't a reason at all.

"I am once again going to argue that the Civil War, or more accurately the War Between the States, was not fought over the issue of slavery."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's not what you said in your first post. You said slavery wasn't a reason at all.

Those quotes are referring to separate things.

 

[Doug]

I have some documents which may help to settle the question of whether or not slavery was central to the South's decision to secede.

I could post them up somewhere where everyone could read them in their entirety.

Here is an example:

Address of George Williamson, Commissioner from Louisiana to the Texas Secession Convention

"George Williamson was born in South Carolina in 1829 and was graduated from the University of South Carolina in 1850. Practiced law in Shreveport and Mansfield, and served as district attorney for Mansfield. During the war he was in the Confederate Army, serving as a staff officer to several generals, including Leonidas Polk, John B. Magruder, and Edmund Kirby Smith. After the war he practiced law and served as a diplomat in Central America. Died at the age of 61. The text of his speech is taken from E.W. Winkler, ed., Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas, pp 120-123. "

I have the honor to address you as the commissioner of the people of Louisiana, accredited to your honorable body. With this communication, by the favor of your presiding officer, will be laid before you my credentials, the ordinance of secession, a resolution in regard to the Mississippi river and the ordinance to provide for the appointment of delegates to a convention to form a Southern Confederacy. These ordinances and the resolution were adopted at their respective dates by the people of Louisiana in convention assembled, after serious debate and calm reflection.
Being desirous of obtaining the concurrence of the people of Texas in what she has done, Louisiana invites you to a candid consideration of her acts in resuming the powers delegated to the government of the late United States, and in providing for the formation of a confederacy of "The States which have seceded and may secede." The archives of the Federal Government bear ample testimony to the loyalty of Louisiana to the American Union. Her conservatism has been proverbial in political circles. The character and pursuits of her people, her immense agricultural wealth, her large banking capital, her possession of the great commercial metropolis of the South, whose varied trade almost rivals that of the city of "ten thousand masts" present facts sufficient to make "assurance double sure" she did not take these grave steps for light or transient causes. She was impelled to this action to preserve her honor, her safety, her property and the free institutions so sacred to her people. She believed the federal agent had betrayed her trust, had become the facile instrument of a hostile people, and was usurping despotic powers. She considered that the present vacillating executive, on the 4th of March next, would be supplanted by a stalwart fanatic of the Northwest, whose energetic will, backed by the frenzied bigotry of unpatriotic masses, would cause him to establish the military despotism already inaugurated.

The people of Louisiana were unwilling to endanger their liberties and property by submission to the despotism of a single tyrant, or the canting tyranny of pharisaical majorities. Insulted by the denial of her constitutional equality by the non-slaveholding States, outraged by their contemptuous rejection of proffered compromises, and convinced that she was illustrating the capacity of her people for self-government by withdrawing from a union that had failed, without fault of hers, to accomplish its purposes, she declared herself a free and independent State on the 26th day of January last. History affords no example of a people who changed their government for more just or substantial reasons. Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. She congratulates herself on the recent disposition evinced by your body to meet this wish, by the election of delegates to the Montgomery convention. Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws and institutions. Between the citizens of each exists the most cordial social and commercial intercourse. The Red river and the Sabine form common highways for the transportation of their produce to the markets of the world. Texas affords to the commerce of Louisiana a large portion of her products, and in exchange the banks of New Orleans furnish Texas with her only paper circulating medium. Louisiana supplies to Texas a market for her surplus wheat, grain and stock; both States have large areas of fertile, uncultivated lands, peculiarly adapted to slave labor; and they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity. Each of the States has an extended Gulf coast, and must look with equal solicitude to its protection now, and the acquisition of the entire control of the Gulf of Mexico in due time. No two States of this confederacy are so identified in interest, and whose destinies are so closely interwoven with each other. Nature, sympathy and unity of interest make them almost one. Recognizing these facts, but still confident in her own powers to maintain a separate existence, Louisiana regards with great concern the vote of the people of Texas on the ratification of the ordinance of secession, adopted by your honorable body on the 1st of the present month. She is confident a people who so nobly and gallantly achieved their liberties under such unparalleled difficulties will not falter in maintaining them now. The Mexican yoke could not have been more galling to "the army of heroes" of '36 than the Black republican rule would be to the survivors and sons of that army at the present day.
The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile savages. Experience justifies these expectations. A professedly friendly federal administration gave Texas no substantial protection against the Indians or abolitionists, and what must she look for from an administration avowedly inimical and supported by no vote within her borders. Promises won from the timid and faithless are poor hostages of good faith. As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slaveholding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery. The isolation of any one of them from the others would make her a theatre for abolition emissaries from the North and from Europe. Her existence would be one of constant peril to herself and of imminent danger to other neighboring slave-holding communities. A decent respect for the opinions and interests of the Gulf States seems to indicate that Texas should co-operate with them. I am authorized to say to your honorable body that Louisiana does not expect any beneficial result from the peace conference now assembled at Washington. She is unwilling that her action should depend on the border States. Her interests are identical with Texas and the seceding States. With them she will at present co-operate, hoping and believing in his own good time God will awaken the people of the border States to the vanity of asking for, or depending upon, guarantees or compromises wrung from a people whose consciences are too sublimated to be bound by that sacred compact, the constitution of the late United States. That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual.

Geo. Williamson
Commissioner of the State of Louisiana
City of Austin Feby 11th 1861.


========================================================

I have many, many more documents like this. There is really no question that the preservation of slavery was central in the South's motivation to secede.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I have some documents which may help to settle the question of whether or not slavery was central to the South's decision to secede.

I could post them up somewhere where everyone could read them in their entirety.

Here is an example:

Address of George Williamson, Commissioner from Louisiana to the Texas Secession Convention

"George Williamson was born in South Carolina in 1829 and was graduated from the University of South Carolina in 1850. Practiced law in Shreveport and Mansfield, and served as district attorney for Mansfield. During the war he was in the Confederate Army, serving as a staff officer to several generals, including Leonidas Polk, John B. Magruder, and Edmund Kirby Smith. After the war he practiced law and served as a diplomat in Central America. Died at the age of 61. The text of his speech is taken from E.W. Winkler, ed., Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas, pp 120-123. "

I have the honor to address you as the commissioner of the people of Louisiana, accredited to your honorable body. With this communication, by the favor of your presiding officer, will be laid before you my credentials, the ordinance of secession, a resolution in regard to the Mississippi river and the ordinance to provide for the appointment of delegates to a convention to form a Southern Confederacy. These ordinances and the resolution were adopted at their respective dates by the people of Louisiana in convention assembled, after serious debate and calm reflection.
Being desirous of obtaining the concurrence of the people of Texas in what she has done, Louisiana invites you to a candid consideration of her acts in resuming the powers delegated to the government of the late United States, and in providing for the formation of a confederacy of "The States which have seceded and may secede." The archives of the Federal Government bear ample testimony to the loyalty of Louisiana to the American Union. Her conservatism has been proverbial in political circles. The character and pursuits of her people, her immense agricultural wealth, her large banking capital, her possession of the great commercial metropolis of the South, whose varied trade almost rivals that of the city of "ten thousand masts" present facts sufficient to make "assurance double sure" she did not take these grave steps for light or transient causes. She was impelled to this action to preserve her honor, her safety, her property and the free institutions so sacred to her people. She believed the federal agent had betrayed her trust, had become the facile instrument of a hostile people, and was usurping despotic powers. She considered that the present vacillating executive, on the 4th of March next, would be supplanted by a stalwart fanatic of the Northwest, whose energetic will, backed by the frenzied bigotry of unpatriotic masses, would cause him to establish the military despotism already inaugurated.

The people of Louisiana were unwilling to endanger their liberties and property by submission to the despotism of a single tyrant, or the canting tyranny of pharisaical majorities. Insulted by the denial of her constitutional equality by the non-slaveholding States, outraged by their contemptuous rejection of proffered compromises, and convinced that she was illustrating the capacity of her people for self-government by withdrawing from a union that had failed, without fault of hers, to accomplish its purposes, she declared herself a free and independent State on the 26th day of January last. History affords no example of a people who changed their government for more just or substantial reasons. Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. She congratulates herself on the recent disposition evinced by your body to meet this wish, by the election of delegates to the Montgomery convention. Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws and institutions. Between the citizens of each exists the most cordial social and commercial intercourse. The Red river and the Sabine form common highways for the transportation of their produce to the markets of the world. Texas affords to the commerce of Louisiana a large portion of her products, and in exchange the banks of New Orleans furnish Texas with her only paper circulating medium. Louisiana supplies to Texas a market for her surplus wheat, grain and stock; both States have large areas of fertile, uncultivated lands, peculiarly adapted to slave labor; and they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity. Each of the States has an extended Gulf coast, and must look with equal solicitude to its protection now, and the acquisition of the entire control of the Gulf of Mexico in due time. No two States of this confederacy are so identified in interest, and whose destinies are so closely interwoven with each other. Nature, sympathy and unity of interest make them almost one. Recognizing these facts, but still confident in her own powers to maintain a separate existence, Louisiana regards with great concern the vote of the people of Texas on the ratification of the ordinance of secession, adopted by your honorable body on the 1st of the present month. She is confident a people who so nobly and gallantly achieved their liberties under such unparalleled difficulties will not falter in maintaining them now. The Mexican yoke could not have been more galling to "the army of heroes" of '36 than the Black republican rule would be to the survivors and sons of that army at the present day.
The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile savages. Experience justifies these expectations. A professedly friendly federal administration gave Texas no substantial protection against the Indians or abolitionists, and what must she look for from an administration avowedly inimical and supported by no vote within her borders. Promises won from the timid and faithless are poor hostages of good faith. As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slaveholding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery. The isolation of any one of them from the others would make her a theatre for abolition emissaries from the North and from Europe. Her existence would be one of constant peril to herself and of imminent danger to other neighboring slave-holding communities. A decent respect for the opinions and interests of the Gulf States seems to indicate that Texas should co-operate with them. I am authorized to say to your honorable body that Louisiana does not expect any beneficial result from the peace conference now assembled at Washington. She is unwilling that her action should depend on the border States. Her interests are identical with Texas and the seceding States. With them she will at present co-operate, hoping and believing in his own good time God will awaken the people of the border States to the vanity of asking for, or depending upon, guarantees or compromises wrung from a people whose consciences are too sublimated to be bound by that sacred compact, the constitution of the late United States. That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual.

Geo. Williamson
Commissioner of the State of Louisiana
City of Austin Feby 11th 1861.


========================================================

I have many, many more documents like this. There is really no question that the preservation of slavery was central in the South's motivation to secede.

Very interesting read, but I have already conceded the point. RGS provided some very good evidence as well, and for me to ignore it would be silly. It would be as silly for me to ignore that, as much as it is silly for people to ignore the evidence that shows tariffs had a major impact on their decision as well.

 

[Doug]

Kevin: Yes, no doubt the secessionists considered the advantages of being able to set their own (low) tarrifs, and other things as well. But you don't wage a civil war over tariffs. Hell, I'm a Southerner, and I would almost go to war not to have to be governed by people with those terrible, grating Yankee accents. Almost, but not quite.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin: Yes, no doubt the secessionists considered the advantages of being able to set their own (low) tarrifs, and other things as well. But you don't wage a civil war over tariffs. Hell, I'm a Southerner, and I would almost go to war not to have to be governed by people with those terrible, grating Yankee accents. Almost, but not quite.

Well, as I said, I have already conceded the point that slavery was a concern of the south as they seceded.

However, what are your thoughts on it being "Lincoln's War?" Do you believe, as I believe, that slavery was safer in the Union than it was out of the Union? And finally, do you believe secession to be a legitimate right of the states?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, as I said, I have already conceded the point that slavery was a concern of the south as they seceded.

However, what are your thoughts on it being "Lincoln's War?" Do you believe, as I believe, that slavery was safer in the Union than it was out of the Union? And finally, do you believe secession to be a legitimate right of the states?

I believe that since the Union required a vote of all involved to be formed that such a vote must occur to dissolve it. It required 75 percent of the colonies to form the US and it would require 75 percent of the US to agree to any State leaving said Union.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I believe that since the Union required a vote of all involved to be formed that such a vote must occur to dissolve it. It required 75 percent of the colonies to form the US and it would require 75 percent of the US to agree to any State leaving said Union.

However, the two states that did not immediately ratify the Constitution were not forced against their will into the Union simply because a majority of the states did ratify it. They remained independent nations.

A state leaving the Union does not infringe on the liberties of any other state, so why would a state need the permission of any others to leave?

And just to add to this, the Constitution does not prohibit a state from seceding and it does not say anything about needing 75% of the other states' consent to secede. Therefore, the federal government has no authority to stop a state that wishes to leave the Union.