Did South Carolina's Declaration of Causes for Secession tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
And I considered the post aprobriate because I consider the entire thread/OP detracting from actual history.

I'd call that stockbroker and sell, immediately. :wink:
Funny that you keep following it. Apparently there are a lot of other people who do not consider it detracting. But thanks for your post.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Funny that you keep following it. Apparently there are a lot of other people who do not consider it detracting. But thanks for your post.
I follow not to learn, for every post seems to have a vested interest in a personal agenda, but to keep informed how far this thread "jumps the tracks" when it comes to actual history.

More straw?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Another criticism of the truthfulness of SC's Secesh Declarations come to mind. In short, they were not just secession documents. Truth be told they were every bit expansionist declarations as they were secession declarations. They weren't just taking their marbles and going home. They intended to take some Union marbles with them. The use of the word "secession" was simply a red herring they expected the naive to swallow; and it is evident that a lot of people did then and many in their wake 180 years after the fact. Lincoln didn't bite and many others have not feasted on them either.

FYI, I happen to believe in the rights of the states in 1860 to secede. No question in spite of all Abe's double talk. But I don't think a seceding state had the right to steal from the Union what the Union had recently stolen from Mexico.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
That the framers of the South Carolina, et. al., Declaration of Causes ... , were liars and dissemblers can hardly be doubted. But, That the north had become implacably hostile to the very existence of Slavery and could not be trusted to honor its Constitutional obligations to S.C. was an article of faith, by all those framers, even the fire-eaters. They lied and dissembled to given S.C. the excuse to secede, that they did not believe they could do by telling the truth. or not dissembling.
 

Robin Lesjovitch

Sergeant
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Another criticism of the truthfulness of SC's Secesh Declarations come to mind. In short, they were not just secession documents. Truth be told they were every bit expansionist declarations as they were secession declarations. They weren't just taking their marbles and going home. They intended to take some Union marbles with them. The use of the word "secession" was simply a red herring they expected the naive to swallow; and it is evident that a lot of people did then and many in their wake 180 years after the fact. Lincoln didn't bite and many others have not feasted on them either.

FYI, I happen to believe in the rights of the states in 1860 to secede. No question in spite of all Abe's double talk. But I don't think a seceding state had the right to steal from the Union what the Union had recently stolen from Mexico.
If these were expansionist documents, they were not very rational. South Carolina's enterprise absolutely needed most to the slave states to succeed. The slave states to the north were not very enthusiastic about this business. VA, TN and NC finally came on board, but only after there seemed no choice. These states were not really much interested in expansionism. And those states would have a large voice in any CSA policy after indepenence, no matter how it came about. In fact, I think those 3 states would have begun a program of ending slavery for themselves, as there would no longer be any meddling from "outsiders" in the matter.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
That the framers of the South Carolina, et. al., Declaration of Causes ... , were liars and dissemblers can hardly be doubted. But, That the north had become implacably hostile to the very existence of Slavery and could not be trusted to honor its Constitutional obligations to S.C. was an article of faith, by all those framers, even the fire-eaters. They lied and dissembled to given S.C. the excuse to secede, that they did not believe they could do by telling the truth. or not dissembling.
Thank you for an explicit response to the OP.
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
No problem. The primacy of Slavery for Secession and War, is quite plain, historically speaking.
My silence, as you must know, is not tantamount to your declaration of the primacy of slavery. And as I recall, even you called the creators of the Sec Dec liars or the equivalent thereto.

Peace.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Here is another case in point why South Carolina's secession declarations were nothing but baloney. These declarations were simply deliberately vague generalizations that strawmanned the north. To read them one would think every last Yankee was an abolitionist. That, of course, is about as far from the truth as you can get. Take, for example, one group of Yankees: the Irish. In his book The Cause of All Nations, Don Doyle states that the Irish had no interest in freeing slaves because they did not want those slaves competing with them for jobs. South Carolina's declarations overwhelmingly and falsely characterize the Yankees as nothing but fire-eating abolitionists.

Conclusion: South Carolina's secession declarations simply flunk the truth test. F-.
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
Dear Fellow Posters,

My answer to this question is a resounding "No!" However, I am not launching this thread to argue my position. i wish to hear YOUR position.

If your answer is "Yes," you are welcome, of course, to post, though I pretty much already know what you will be saying (slavery, slavery slavery). But if you suspect that there is more to the story about "The Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union," I would especially enjoy hearing from you.

This question has been prompted by comments on other threads which seem to say that this document tells the whole story and that other statements in letters, Congressional documents, essays, etc. from 1845-1860 have little bearing on the subject. I don't see it that way. Do you?

Sincerely,

James
This was the very first document they were producing in a critical moment of history,they certainly knew it's significance and that the entire world would read it,so it's beyond belief that they wouldn't put the most critical issues that mattered to them in it...In my opinion, after South Carolina failed to be followed by the border state's that they produced the second document which was strictly wordedto draw them in and to paint a better picture of the state for future foreign trading partners
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
This was the very first document they were producing in a critical moment of history,they certainly knew it's significance and that the entire world would read it,so it's beyond belief that they wouldn't put the most critical issues that mattered to them in it...In my opinion, after South Carolina failed to be followed by the border state's that they produced the second document which was strictly wordedto draw them in and to paint a better picture of the state for future foreign trading partners
Thanks for your post.

"Critical" is not the question. "True?" is.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Robin Lesjovitch

Sergeant
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
How about the "truth" being something nobody then or now wants to address.
Americans have been inflicted with racism for over 400 years. "Preservation", or "extension" of slavery were code words (or substitute thoughts) for keeping Africans from gaining partial or general control of society or government. In the case of South Carolina, it was crucial to Whites not to allow Blacks in any numbers independence because of racial attitudes, not the absolute need of slavery.
South Carolina could not declare to the world that it was scared of the majority population of SC, that being enslaved Blacks.
White South Carolinians had no real interest in expansion of slavery into the western territories. The interest was in keeping a large number of free states from being created, and, possibly, inflicting on them the specter of free Blacks.
This racism was not peculiar to the Slave States. Fear of Blacks was obvious in most of the United States.
That is and was a "truth" that many will not speak about in public. The Whites of South Carolina did not want it a public issue.
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
How about the "truth" being something nobody then or now wants to address.
Americans have been inflicted with racism for over 400 years. "Preservation", or "extension" of slavery were code words (or substitute thoughts) for keeping Africans from gaining partial or general control of society or government. In the case of South Carolina, it was crucial to Whites not to allow Blacks in any numbers independence because of racial attitudes, not the absolute need of slavery.
South Carolina could not declare to the world that it was scared of the majority population of SC, that being enslaved Blacks.
White South Carolinians had no real interest in expansion of slavery into the western territories. The interest was in keeping a large number of free states from being created, and, possibly, inflicting on them the specter of free Blacks.
This racism was not peculiar to the Slave States. Fear of Blacks was obvious in most of the United States.
That is and was a "truth" that many will not speak about in public. The Whites of South Carolina did not want it a public issue.
Thanks for your post.

Are you saying that secession had more to do with social concerns (white supremacy) than economic concerns (cotton)?

And do I understand correctly, when you say "South Carolina could not declare to the world . . ", that you agree that the Declarations were simply not true?
 

Robin Lesjovitch

Sergeant
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Thanks for your post.

Are you saying that secession had more to do with social concerns (white supremacy) than economic concerns (cotton)?

And do I understand correctly, when you say "South Carolina could not declare to the world . . ", that you agree that the Declarations were simply not true?
I do not think the Declarations represented the entire fundamental truth.
As to "white supremacy" in its most general definition, even Lincoln felt that Blacks in great numbers could not successfully integrate into American society. My point is that SC Whites could not tell the world how scared they were.Scared people do not ueually get a lot of sympathy.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
The lies were mostly those of omission, rather than commission. But, the omissions were of Slavery Not TRR;'s.
My scope of Secesh Declarations is a bit more broad. While it certainly includes and prioritizes SC's in December 1860, it does not neglect all the expressions for secession between 1850-1860. Most posters I have read omit all of those entirely, and that is my primary point. That decade was larded heavily with the relationship between secession and the TRR. Read Albert Pike's essay in De Bow for an example.
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
I'll go with Laurence Keitt, who stated that the only issue at hand worth discussing was slavery. His viewpoint won the majority, and that's why the declaration of causes focuses almost entirely on that point.

"But the Tariff is not the question which brought the people up to their present attitude. We are to give a summary of our causes to the world, but mainly to the other Southern States, whose co-action we wish, and we must not make a fight on the Tariff question.
The Whig party, thoughout all the States, have been protective Tariff men, and they cling to that old issue with all the passion incident to the pride of human opinions. Are we to go off now, when other Southern States are bringing their people up to the true mark? Are we to go off on debateable and doctrinal points? Are we to go back to the consideration of this question, of this great controversy; go back to that party's politics, around which so many passions cluster? Names are much — associations and passions cluster around names.
I can give no better illustration than to relate an anecdote given me by a member from Louisiana. He said, after the election of Lincoln, he went to an old Whig party friend and said to him: We have been beaten — our honor requires a dissolution of the Union. Let us see if we cannot agree together, and offered him a resolution to this effect –Resolved, That the honor of Louisiana requires her to disrupt every tie that binds her to the Federal Government. [Laughter.]
It is name, and when we come to more practicability we must consult names. Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it."

And then there's the questions to his motives and honesty. You have to attack that, because the language stands explicit and ****ing on its own.

As others have stated, this is the cause he led, this is what the committee voted for, and this is the instrumentality that they used to convert others to their cause.

Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew shows that over and over again the commissioners of secession sent to the other parties framed the debate for secession in terms of the survival of slavery and its basis for the survival of their society. Terms like miscegenation and servile insurrection were repeatedly used.

This is inconvenient to modern apologists, to say the least.

Furman used to have a great web page that included the entire minutes of the SC convention. A shame it came down.
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Or I suppose I could believe the Grey Ghost, John S. Mosby, that said not only did South Carolina secede over slavery, not only that he never heard another cause for the war, but also that the people that claimed otherwise were liars of the worst sort.

He was amazed when he heard that people supporting the Lost Cause were purporting that Virginia was the state of abolition and that the North was pro-slavery just 35 years after the war.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Or I suppose I could believe the Grey Ghost, John S. Mosby, that said not only did South Carolina secede over slavery, not only that he never heard another cause for the war, but also that the people that claimed otherwise were liars of the worst sort.

He was amazed when he heard that people supporting the Lost Cause were purporting that Virginia was the state of abolition and that the North was pro-slavery just 35 years after the war.
Mosby never heard of another suggested cause? Some scholar he was.
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Mosby never heard of another suggested cause? Some scholar he was.
He was a lawyer and learned man, but most importantly, he lived it.

Just like Longstreet, who also stated that 'I've never heard any other cause for the war but slavery.'

But then these men joined the Republican cause in reconstruction, and both had attempts on their lives because of it. Longstreet was attacked at the battle of Liberty Place in New Orleans by white supremacists, and was villified for using black troops and considering them to be worthy of human rights. An assassination attempt on Mosby occurred at the Warrenton Depot.

And they were both opposed to the Lost Cause mythology, Longstreet being the primary villain in the deification of Lee. Mosby in particular was incensed at the attacks on JEB Stuart, his personal mentor in the war.

Telling the truth was dangerous in a land where 'honor' dictated the creation of a myth to save face.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top