Dissing History

[johnsneed]

In this instance I have to side with Jimklag in that, what caused the war and what the men in the field were fighting for, are not necessarily the same thing. And mr. highplainsdrifter59, allow me to compliment you on the civil tone to your comments to me. I confess I am new as a historian, hence the name, and certainly I will forever be in a learning mode. If I have learned anything after 2 years of grad school, it is, that after 2 years of grad school, I have barely scratched the surface of what there is to learn.

Having said that sir, I will repeat that if slavery had not existed in the United States, the Civil War would not have been fought. Politicians on both sides did not want a war. Without slavery, in my humble opinion, I believe compromises would have been found. I also believe, at the risk of sticking my neck out too far, that abolitionists in the North and wealthy plantation owners and politicians who benefitted economically from slave labor, pushed both sides into armed conflict. The hardness in the positions of the 2 sides, over slavery, made political compromise all but impossible.

Now, having put all that out there, if I am mistaken, I am willing to be taught by my betters.

John Sneed

 

[Rebforever]

​

Here is a direct quote frome the very first sentence of the Mississippi declaration of causes.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery. . .

Here is all of it.

"Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
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.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it."


http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

 

[Jimklag]

In this instance I have to side with Jimklag in that, what caused the war and what the men in the field were fighting for, are not necessarily the same thing. And mr. highplainsdrifter59, allow me to compliment you on the civil tone to your comments to me. I confess I am new as a historian, hence the name, and certainly I will forever be in a learning mode. If I have learned anything after 2 years of grad school, it is, that after 2 years of grad school, I have barely scratched the surface of what there is to learn.

Having said that sir, I will repeat that if slavery had not existed in the United States, the Civil War would not have been fought. Politicians on both sides did not want a war. Without slavery, in my humble opinion, I believe compromises would have been found. I also believe, at the risk of sticking my neck out too far, that abolitionists in the North and wealthy plantation owners and politicians who benefitted economically from slave labor, pushed both sides into armed conflict. The hardness in the positions of the 2 sides, over slavery, made political compromise all but impossible.

Now, having put all that out there, if I am mistaken, I am willing to be taught by my betters.

John Sneed

 

[MattL]

One force firing on another does not always lead to war, while I think it was stupid to fire on Sumter I concede it could have produced direct talks between Montgomery and Washington . It depended on the character of the president in DC and few knew what kind of man Lincoln was prior to the firing on Sumter.

Gov Pickens declared "war is commenced" after initiating attacks on Fort Sumter and 2 days before Lincoln called for troops. They declared war with that action.

Now your question was indeed interesting, if they had chosen not to fire on Fort Sumter then the supply mission from the US would have just provided subsistence (as orders given reveals). What would have happened next? It's hard to say, we're in what if territory now. The US clearly wasn't going to accept unilateral secession and the CSA clearly wasn't going to treat it like it wasn't valid... The best avenue would have been for the future CSA to get more support before leaving, somehow bargain a consensus secession. Not sure if it was possible but with the way things were headed it seemed pretty clear the CSA would have eventually used force.

 

[GELongstreet]

Would there have been a war if fort Sumter was not fired on?

Sooner or later they would have found something else to fire on ...

 

[MattL]

Correct. I'm glad someone sees it!

I believe everyone, or at least almost everyone since there's always outliers, knows this. Reasons and causes are different however. Even then not all reasons or causes necessarily matter compared to others. For example here are the reasons why I responded to your post.

• I have an opinion on the content of your post and wanted to respond
• I have a break for a moment while doing some work
• I respect you and your posts so I like to respond to them

All are true and in fact are reasons, though if that first thing didn't happen the others wouldn't (corrected from would) matter. No I didn't post in response to you because I have a break in the moment for work... and though I respect you if I didn't have an opinion on the matter I wouldn't have posted that I have no opinion on the matter. I could list many more reasons that are inconsequential. What caused me to post was having an opinion and wanted to respond.

Everyone knows there is a massive list of differences, issues, conflicts between the US and CSA States. Those all didn't cause a Civil War however.

What many of us see is people pointing to anything but slavery and saying "see, it wasn't just slavery."... but the reality is the events that started secession and lead to war were indeed really about slavery. Sure some other factors had to align, though most of those are even directly tied to slavery as it turns out (such as agriculture etc).

 

[atlantis]

Which history civil war or war for independence is treated with less bias? I am talking about among people with a serious interest in history. These 2 conflicts probably more than any other go to who we are as a nation/people.

 

[MattL]

We must remember that slavery was legal in those southern states. Why go and get yourself killed over something that was already there.
So the southern elite sat around one day and said lets get us a war started to have slaves. Good old Johnny spoke up and said, don't we already have this now and it's legal? Well there you go Johnny you just ruined a good reason to succeed.

Let me answer you with a quote from the Georgia Commissioner sent to the Virginia Secession to convince them to join them.

Georgia Commissioner to Virginia Secession Convention

http://secession.richmond.edu/docum...t=1&order=date&direction=ascending&id=pb.1.86

----
The PRESIDENT—

In further execution of the order of the day, I have the honor of introducing to you the Hon. HENRY L. BENNING, of Georgia.

...

What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North- was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause. It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil. But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken. It therefore becomes important to inquire whether this conviction was well founded.

Is it true, then, that unless there had been a separation from the North, slavery would be abolished in Georgia? I address myself to the proofs of that case.

In the first place, I say that the North hates slavery, and, in using that expression I speak wittingly. In saying that the Black Republican party of the North hates slavery, I speak intentionally. If there is a doubt upon that question in the mind of any one who listens to me, a few of the multitude of proofs which could fill this room, would, I think, be sufficient to satisfy him. I beg to refer to a few of the proofs that are so abundant; and the first that I shall adduce consists in two extracts from a speech of Lincoln's, made in October, 1858. They are as follows : "I have always hated slavery as much as any abolitionist; I have always been an old line Whig; I have always hated it and I always believed it in the course of ultimate extinction, and if I were in Congress and a vote should come up on the question, whether slavery should be excluded from the territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should."

These are pregnant statements; they avow a sentiment, a political principle of action, a sentiment of hatred to slavery as extreme as hatred can exist. The political principle here avowed is, that his action against slavery is not to be restrained by the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. I say, if you can find any degree of hatred greater than that, I should like to see it. This is the sentiment of the chosen leader of the Black Republican party ; and can you doubt that it is not entertained by every solitary member of that same party? You cannot, I think. He is a representative man; his sentiments are the sentiments of his party; his principles of political action are the principles of political action of his party. I say, then; it is true, at least, that the Republican party of the North hates slavery.
----


There is a lot more like this, I'm starting to document this all in one thread and in a timeline here:
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/timeline-of-slavery-and-secession.137718

You can read the South Carolina's Commissioner do the same. They go into far more detail than I quote, often pages of it. They very clearly expressed Lincoln's election and those that had control of the US meant slavery was directly threatened and not just in the territories.

 

[cash]

​

Here is all of it.

"Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
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.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it."


http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

And I see nothing there unrelated to slavery.

 

[atlantis]

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being a lot, how big a role did slavery play in cause of war. War of independence, War of 1812, Mexican war and does this indicate that civil war over slavery was unavoidable?

 

[Jimklag]

Let me answer you with a quote from the Georgia Commissioner sent to the Virginia Secession to convince them to join them.

Georgia Commissioner to Virginia Secession Convention

http://secession.richmond.edu/docum...t=1&order=date&direction=ascending&id=pb.1.86

----
The PRESIDENT—

In further execution of the order of the day, I have the honor of introducing to you the Hon. HENRY L. BENNING, of Georgia.

...

What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North- was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause. It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil. But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken. It therefore becomes important to inquire whether this conviction was well founded.

Is it true, then, that unless there had been a separation from the North, slavery would be abolished in Georgia? I address myself to the proofs of that case.

In the first place, I say that the North hates slavery, and, in using that expression I speak wittingly. In saying that the Black Republican party of the North hates slavery, I speak intentionally. If there is a doubt upon that question in the mind of any one who listens to me, a few of the multitude of proofs which could fill this room, would, I think, be sufficient to satisfy him. I beg to refer to a few of the proofs that are so abundant; and the first that I shall adduce consists in two extracts from a speech of Lincoln's, made in October, 1858. They are as follows : "I have always hated slavery as much as any abolitionist; I have always been an old line Whig; I have always hated it and I always believed it in the course of ultimate extinction, and if I were in Congress and a vote should come up on the question, whether slavery should be excluded from the territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should."

These are pregnant statements; they avow a sentiment, a political principle of action, a sentiment of hatred to slavery as extreme as hatred can exist. The political principle here avowed is, that his action against slavery is not to be restrained by the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. I say, if you can find any degree of hatred greater than that, I should like to see it. This is the sentiment of the chosen leader of the Black Republican party ; and can you doubt that it is not entertained by every solitary member of that same party? You cannot, I think. He is a representative man; his sentiments are the sentiments of his party; his principles of political action are the principles of political action of his party. I say, then; it is true, at least, that the Republican party of the North hates slavery.
----


There is a lot more like this, I'm starting to document this all in one thread and in a timeline here:
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/timeline-of-slavery-and-secession.137718

You can read the South Carolina's Commissioner do the same. They go into far more detail than I quote, often pages of it. They very clearly expressed Lincoln's election and those that had control of the US meant slavery was directly threatened and not just in the territories.

Your point is dead on. The men of the south, at that time, loudly and proudly announced that they were fighting to keep their slaves and that everything else was secondary. But, after the war, as part of the lost cause liturgy, slavery disappeared from their discussion to show that they were only fighting over tariff's and taxes and states rights and it was never about the slaves. And that has been perpetuated - listen to atguments being mooted in this thread.

 

[MattL]

Let me answer you with a quote from the Georgia Commissioner sent to the Virginia Secession to convince them to join them.

Georgia Commissioner to Virginia Secession Convention

http://secession.richmond.edu/docum...t=1&order=date&direction=ascending&id=pb.1.86

----
The PRESIDENT—

In further execution of the order of the day, I have the honor of introducing to you the Hon. HENRY L. BENNING, of Georgia.

...

What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North- was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause. It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil. But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken. It therefore becomes important to inquire whether this conviction was well founded.

Is it true, then, that unless there had been a separation from the North, slavery would be abolished in Georgia? I address myself to the proofs of that case.

In the first place, I say that the North hates slavery, and, in using that expression I speak wittingly. In saying that the Black Republican party of the North hates slavery, I speak intentionally. If there is a doubt upon that question in the mind of any one who listens to me, a few of the multitude of proofs which could fill this room, would, I think, be sufficient to satisfy him. I beg to refer to a few of the proofs that are so abundant; and the first that I shall adduce consists in two extracts from a speech of Lincoln's, made in October, 1858. They are as follows : "I have always hated slavery as much as any abolitionist; I have always been an old line Whig; I have always hated it and I always believed it in the course of ultimate extinction, and if I were in Congress and a vote should come up on the question, whether slavery should be excluded from the territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should."

These are pregnant statements; they avow a sentiment, a political principle of action, a sentiment of hatred to slavery as extreme as hatred can exist. The political principle here avowed is, that his action against slavery is not to be restrained by the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. I say, if you can find any degree of hatred greater than that, I should like to see it. This is the sentiment of the chosen leader of the Black Republican party ; and can you doubt that it is not entertained by every solitary member of that same party? You cannot, I think. He is a representative man; his sentiments are the sentiments of his party; his principles of political action are the principles of political action of his party. I say, then; it is true, at least, that the Republican party of the North hates slavery.
----


There is a lot more like this, I'm starting to document this all in one thread and in a timeline here:
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/timeline-of-slavery-and-secession.137718

You can read the South Carolina's Commissioner do the same. They go into far more detail than I quote, often pages of it. They very clearly expressed Lincoln's election and those that had control of the US meant slavery was directly threatened and not just in the territories.

Just to add this is why this is frustrating for many of us. Not to insult you, we all get exposed to information and I didn't get exposed to much of this until coming here and digging further myself. There are an array of statements from Southern officials themselves arguing how staying with the US after Lincoln's election directly threatens slavery. They don't say this in few words but in many and very strongly... yet we see people say things along the lines of what you have said.

We must remember that slavery was legal in those southern states. Why go and get yourself killed over something that was already there.

When again the Southern officials and leaders of their time explicitly made arguments why slavery was so threatened. Unfortunately a lot of this is the fault of a lack of thorough Civil War education, something I myself was exposed to a lack of (though probably pretty typical for my time period).

To them of that time it wasn't a mystery why the Civil War started and what it was about... it was known and argued into they were blue in the face. Since then it's faded as many historical topics do.

 

[MattL]

Just to be thorough as well since South Carolina started the whole mess...

December 25th, 1860

Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/...ess-of-south-carolina-to-slaveholding-states/

----
The Address of the people of South Carolina, assembled in Convention, to the people of the Slaveholding States of the United States

...

Experience has proved, that slaveholding States cannot be safe in subjection to non-slaveholding States. Indeed, no people ever expect to preserve its rights and liberties, unless these be in its own custody.
----


February 19th, 1861

South Carolina Commissioner to Virginia Secession Convention

http://secession.richmond.edu/docum...=1&order=date&direction=ascending&id=pb.1.104

----
This, gentlemen, brings me directly to the causes which I desire to lay before you. For fully thirty years or more, the people of the Northern States have assailed the institution of African slavery. They have assailed African slavery in every form in which, by our contiguity of territory and our political alliance with them, they have been permitted to approach it.

...

In other words, the decree, the result of this cumulation which I have endeavored to show you, was inaugurated on the 6th of November last, so far as the institution of slavery is concerned, in the confederates of the Northern non-slaveholding States. That decree is annihilation, and you can make nothing shorter of it.

Now, gentlemen, the people of South Carolina, being a portion of these eight millions of people, have only to ask themselves, is existence worth the struggle? Their answer to this question, I have submitted to you in the form of their Ordinance of Secession.
----

Slavery was existence and Lincoln's election decreed annihilation, from the horses mouth.

 

[Jimklag]

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being a lot, how big a role did slavery play in cause of war. War of independence, War of 1812, Mexican war and does this indicate that civil war over slavery was unavoidable?

In the Mexican War it was the driving force. Whip Mexico and add more territory for the perpetuation of slavery.

 

[Rebforever]

​

Here is all of it.

"Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
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.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it."


http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

So one can see there was a lot of other issues going on.

 

[Jimklag]

So one can see there was a lot of other issues going on.

 

[Rebforever]

Your point is dead on. The men of the south, at that time, loudly and proudly announced that they were fighting to keep their slaves and that everything else was secondary. But, after the war, as part of the lost cause liturgy, slavery disappeared from their discussion to show that they were only fighting over tariff's and taxes and states rights and it was never about the slaves. And that has been perpetuated - listen to atguments being mooted in this thread.

Sure they were afraid of losing their slaves which was protected by the Constitution.
I see you posted "everything else was secondary" and that goes along with what lots of us has always been talking about. It just wasn't all about slavery.

 

[Rebforever]

My friend, stop beating yourself up. Read what you said in your above post #152.
"Everything else is secondary ". So you are saying there was other things in the Secession doc.

 

[unionblue]

UB, history is whatever the powers that be, say it is.

Invoking the "powers that be" is about like believing in the tooth fairy.

It's nice for the children, but adults know better.

 

[cash]

So one can see there was a lot of other issues going on.

It's funny when someone posts something, has no clue what it says, then opines on what they think is in it, and proves they have no clue what it says.