“For openers, try any of Thomas Delorenzo’s works.”
Why should I read someone’s opinion when I can read the actual documents produced by the people who did the seceding?
The Declaration of Causes documents made it clear they were seceding because of slavery.
The Confederate Constitution where they prevented any state from abolishing slavery also showed their priorities (so much for states rights). “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed. “
All 5 million of them, eh?
You let 4 minority states tell you what to think, and *IGNORE* what the other 7 had to say. Why do you do this? Because you want to believe what you want to believe, and you aren't interested in anything that doesn't support what you wish to believe.
Virginia seceded because they viewed the Federal government attempting to raise an army to subjugate their sister states as Tyranny. Virginia was the most important state in the Confederacy, yet you ignore what the most important state had to say to focus on what bugtussel Mississippi had to say.
Not very objective, that.
“Why should I read someone’s opinion...”
It’s called educating yourself, especially on such a hot button, controversial topic. I hope you don’t believe all those hundreds of thousands of Confederate and Union soldiers in their minds were fighting over slavery.
Only 4 states issued declarations of causes. Only one of those 4 listed slavery alone. Oddly you don't seem to want to discuss the other causes mentioned nor do you want to discuss the fact that the Upper South seceded ONLY after Lincoln ordered them to provide troops to attack other states.
The Confederate Constitution where they prevented any state from abolishing slavery also showed their priorities (so much for states rights). “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed. “
The Confederate Constitution of course did no such thing.
". . . delegates from the Deep South met in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4 [1861] to establish the Confederate States of America. The convention acted as a provisional government while at the same time drafting a permanent constitution. . . . Voted down were proposals to reopen the Atlantic slave trade . . . and to prohibit the admission of free states to the new Confederacy. . . .
"The resulting constitution was surprisingly similar to that of the United States. Most of the differences merely spelled out traditional southern interpretations of the federal charter. . . . . it was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionism was not to establish a slaveholders' reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to recreate the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican Party, and they opted for secession only when it seemed clear that separation was the only way to achieve their aim. The decision to allow free states to join the Confederacy reflected a hope that much of the old Union could be reconstituted under southern direction." (Robert A. Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America Past and Present, Fifth Edition, New York: Longman, 1998, pp. 444-445, emphasis added)
Both the 1787 and CSA Constitutions have an Article 1.9 which prohibits the General government to legislate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. Both have an Article 1.10 which denies the States the power to pass such laws. In both Constitutions Article 1.9 applies only to the General government and Article 1.10 applies only to the States.
While the CSA 1.9 prohibits the General government legislating against slavery, CSA Article 1.10 does not mention slavery in any regard. It’s entirely committed to ex post facto and other non-slavery related issues, e.g., excessive bail, entering treaties, laying duties on tonnage and so forth.
So proponents claiming CSA Article 1.9 stops the States from becoming Free States is incorrect. It is solely a prohibition against the General government. If the CSA Founders meant to stop the States from becoming Free States, they would have had to provide that prohibition in Article 1.10.
The Confederacy’s addition to 1.9 denying power to the General government to disestablish the institution of slavery was done so the prohibition would be explicit. Slavery was already implicitly outside the General government’s power when the CSA Founders abolished ‘dual sovereignty’. Slavery, as with any State creation, resided in the sovereignty of their respective peoples.
I'll put it more succinctly for you. The Confederate Constitution was no different from the US Constitution on the issue of slavery except that it banned the importation of slaves from outside immediately instead of having a 20 year grandfather clause like the US Constitution.