Posted on 04/15/2010 1:16:02 PM PDT by wolfcreek
Ten years ago, I received an e-mail from a reader who signed him or herself "J.D." "I am a white racist," wrote J.D., "a white supremacist and I do not deny it."
From that, you'd suspect J.D. had nothing of value to say. You'd be mistaken. J.D. wrote in response to a column documenting the fact that preservation of slavery was the prime directive of the Confederacy. "I was most pleased to see you write what we both know to be the truth," the e-mail said. "I never cease to be amazed at the Sons of Confederate Veterans and similar 'heritage not hate' groups who are constantly whining that the Confederacy was not a white, racist government ..."
That argument, noted J.D. with wry amusement, plays well with "white people who want to be Confederates without any controversy."
(Excerpt) Read more at news-record.com ...
Just as the Northern slaveholding states had discovered, industrialization was indeed making slavery moot. No longer were dozens needed to sit and pick the seeds out of cotton, the cotton gin would do the same job cheaply, efficiently, and only had to be 'fed' when it was in operation.
As much as slavery is presented as a moral issue, the economic side of the issue cannot be ignored.
Indded, slaves represented a large initial capital outlay, and on ongoing capital outlay as well, in housing (dirt floors? No running water? Outhouse? Well, most everyone lived that way.), food, clothing, and at least rudimentary medical care to keep them healthy enough to work. Much as the argument between a horse and an auto could be weighed once roads traversed all but the most difficult terrain, the automobile only needed to be fed when in operation, the horse was in need of constant care.
Where possible, and in an increasing scope, the business of tillage, cultivation, harvest, and processing was becoming increasingly mechanized. So, despite the need for manual labor during harvest, the expense was ongoing. With an increase in immigrants, one might note that slaves were reserved for less hazardous jobs than wage earners, simply because the wage earner did not represent a significant capital investemnt: he/she was replaceable readily, at a minimum of cost.
There are those who will note that slaves were self-replicating, but I would counter with the need to support them through their lives to a useful age for labor, provided they lived that long (infant mortalities were high among all the population then, not just the slaves), before any return could be had on that investment, whereas the wage earner showed up ready to work, without any prior capital outlay on the part of the employer.
So there were, in fact, multiple dynamics which made those who hired their help at an actual economic advantage over those who owned it.
With increasing industrialization, which unchecked by the devastation of the war might have been more rapid than many assume, I think slaveowning would have been far more an economic liability than an asset within a couple of decades, certainly by the 1890s.
Incidentally, the reason the Irish immigrants became teamsters, miners, longshoremen, etc, was that these were jobs which were commonly considered too hazardous to risk losing a slave (and the investment made in that slave) in.
Now, I am not excusing the institution of slavery. I am not denying the fact that slaves were people, too, although the denial of personhood afforded the Negroes by a self-righteous abolitionist would seldom be afforded to the tribes to the west who were stripped of massive assets, land, mineral wealth, etc. just shortly afterward by being presented and treated as 'savages', which justified in the mindset of the Government taking away all by deceit and open warfare.
So I'm not buying the fable of American History that the North was out to free the slaves, especially as many northern states were slaveowning states as well. The whole moral high ground seeps into the morass of deceit and subsequent villification of entire peoples while stealing their birthright in the name of Manifest Destiny.
Simply enough, slavery was an issue at the time because it was an economic cudgel with which to beat the South, to attack the means of production of the wealthiest, and one which would have been as moot in a couple of decades as banning the horse-drawn plow after tractors came widely into use.
It cost 600,000 lives and uncountable treasure to end an institution which would have, for the most art, died a natural death due to changing economic paradigms.
"The North" never claimed to be "out to free the slaves," at least not in the beginning.
In the beginning, for the North it was all about preserving the Union.
But for the South it was all about protecting slavery, period.
And not against an actual threat from the North, mind you, but rather against a perceived potential threat represented by the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln.
An election which, imho, the South engineered!
Yes, Southern secessionists wanted Lincoln elected, so they'd have an excuse to secede.
That's why they split up the Democrat party, dividing their votes, thus giving minority Republicans enough to win.
Smokin' Joe: "The whole moral high ground seeps into the morass of deceit and subsequent villification of entire peoples while stealing their birthright in the name of Manifest Destiny."
Don't know what you are talking about, sounds like a bad dream to me.
The facts are, the South seceded and fought to protect slavery.
The North fought first to preserve the Union, then only later to abolish slavery. Don't know what "vilification" or "deceit" you mean, or how "Manifest Destiny" might fit into this.
Smokin' Joe: "It cost 600,000 lives and uncountable treasure to end an institution which would have, for the most art, died a natural death due to changing economic paradigms."
I don't agree. In a free market, all the supposed "economic disadvantages of slavery" are accounted for in, and adjusted through, the purchase price of slaves.
And my understanding is that in 1860, prices for slaves had never been higher.
That has to mean slaves were hugely in demand, to the point of actual shortages.
Now let us suppose that 20 or 40 years later farming machines begin to come along which increase worker productivity.
Do these machines not also make slaves more productive?
And even if there is suddenly a "surplus" of slaves, doesn't that only make the market price of a slave cheaper, thus easier for more whites to afford?
So, why would any white southerner want to give up slavery if prices for slaves were suddenly so cheap?
How refreshing. After dozens of threads where people argue that the North was freeing the slaves, rather than maintaining an economic stranglehold on the South through the preservation of the Union, we approach the truth.
Considering Calhoun was decrying the tarrif structure imposed to the disadvantage of the South in the 1820s, I think it is really safe to say the threat of forced manumission was seen as an economic sanction. Nothing will cause a people to cling to any institution so much as the threat of destroying it by force, when they themselves might have abolished it in good time. You claim there would have been no willing abolition in the south, but, what of the North? Industrialization and the relative economy of cheap immigrant labor over slave ownership, as well as the incessant cultural change brought by the drum of abolition were indeed taking their toll on the institution. That the South would not have followed the same course is a stretch. The South was industrializing, albeit at a slower rate than the North which had a head start. That the South was burned back into a largely agrarian economy was no accident, the wealthy and powerful of the North remained so, and had the upper hand in the post war development of the rail and steel industries.
The whole moral high ground seeps into the morass of deceit and subsequent villification of entire peoples while stealing their birthright in the name of Manifest Destiny."
Don't know what you are talking about, sounds like a bad dream to me.
For millions, including my most of my wife's ancestors, it was. It was the generally the period just after the War Between the States, unless of course, you were from one of the Eastern Tribes, where it came earlier, marked by treaties which were subsequently violated, and the theft of millions of acres of land by deceit or force, with the resources on and under them. This included the forcible relocation of vast numbers of people in forced marches to areas which amounted to camps, the sequestering of children into State-run schools with limited or no family contact, forbidden even to speak their own language.
Facts are facts, and history is what it is, regardless of what we might wish it would have been, had we been writing the script.
And the history here is very clear:
Southern extremists wanted to secede.
What their many reasons were, we might discuss at length, but the core of it was always, indeed only, slavery.
Absent slavery, issues such as tariffs were entirely negotiable within context of the Union -- no need to secede for lower tariffs.
Nor did the South secede when that was the only issue.
But slavery was a Southern core value, a nonnegotiable condition for the South, and any serious threat against slavery evoked the most violent reactions.
Any threat -- such as the election of abolitionist Republicans to Congress and Abraham Lincoln as President.
Lincoln, of course, in 1860 had no intention of abolishing slavery, nor did any Republican at the time.
What they expected and wanted was that slavery would slowly wither away and eventually die out.
Indeed, in the campaign of 1860, Lincoln said not one word about slavery (or anything else for that matter).
So to attack Lincoln, secessionists had to go back to his earlier speeches, such as "A House Divided" from June 16, 1858:
""A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other."Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South."
And his Cooper Union speech of February 27, 1860, where Lincoln "addressed the single-mindedness of the Southerners, saying":
“ Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events."
And the South did NOT want just "to be left alone."
What they wanted was to make slavery legal everywhere -- not just in the South, but in the Western Territories and even the North.
So at this point, in 1860, it was strictly a matter of Southern Aggression against the Union.
There was no "Northern Aggression" involved -- unless you want to consider the matter of fugitive slaves "Northern Aggression."
Smokin' Joe: "Nothing will cause a people to cling to any institution so much as the threat of destroying it by force, when they themselves might have abolished it in good time. You claim there would have been no willing abolition in the south, but, what of the North? "
Slavery's popularity and eventual legality was almost entirely a function of the size of a state's slave population.
In Northern states, where slaves never exceeded 1% of the population, slavery was relatively quickly and easily abolished.
In Border States (Delaware, Maryland, western Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri), where slaves constituted 10% to 20%, slavery was not strong enough to cause those states to vote for secession.
Even in the Upper South (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas), where slaves were 25% to 30% of the population, secession was not a "sure thing."
Those states at first voted against secession, until the Battle of Fort Sumter convinced enough to join the Confederacy.
Even then, large populations in Western Virginia, Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina resisted secession and remained sympathetic to the Union.
But in the Deep South (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana & Texas), where slave populations approached 50% and more of the total, slavery was simply not a matter that could even be discussed, much less debated.
So it was the perceived threat against slavery represented by the election of abolitionist Republicans which drove the Deep South to secede.
And the truth of it didn't matter to them.
The fact that Lincoln had no intention -- much less constitutional ability -- to abolish slavery didn't matter.
Southern Secessionists just didn't like Lincoln's looks, and that's all that really mattered to them.
Nor did the colonies revolt when the Stamp tax was the only issue. Seldom are such drastic means taken to redress a single grievance, and Secession is no exeption. Slavery was the last straw, but far from the full load. Tarrifs, railroad bridges designed to impede river traffic (and prevent larger vessels from hauling the freight the railroads would), and a host of other issues were involved.
In Border States (Delaware, Maryland, western Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri), where slaves constituted 10% to 20%, slavery was not strong enough to cause those states to vote for secession
Maryland waited for Virginia's legislature to vote on secession. (envision being surrounded, had Virginia failed to seceede and seceeding). By the time that was done, the Legislature had been placed under arrest and was sequestered at Fort McKinley, and it was never allowed to vote on secession.
Keep in mind, that even in a hundred years, Marylanders had not shed the fervor for independant governance which led them to burn two tea ships to the waterline before Boston ever had a Tea Party.
As tobacco was a primary crop (labor intensive), there is a very good chance Maryland would have followed Virginia had the opportunity come before the invasion of the state by more northern Militias, an invasion protested after the confiscation of arms in the Maryland Militia armories by the burning of bridges and the riots, most particularly in Baltimore, in which citizens pelted invading troops with rocks, bricks, and bottles.
Numerous Marylanders headed South to sign up in the Virginia regiments and the First Maryland Volunteers.
The State Song was written by an expatriate Marylander in Louisiana during the war and the lines "Avenge the patriotic gore/That flecked the streets of Baltimore" referred to the riots there. I have trouble believing those lines would have remained in the State Song were sentiment in the state, even after the war, not heavily pro-secessionist.
As for slavery in the Northern States, the percentage of slaves had dwindled in the face of waves of immigrants, who worked more cheaply and did not have to be provided for. That is the very dynamic which would have eventually made slavery defunct in the south as well.
There was no "Northern Aggression" involved -- unless you want to consider the matter of fugitive slaves "Northern Aggression."
When one considers that until Lee's foray north, every battle fought was on Southern soil, and with the exception of Sumpter, was the result of an invasion by northern troops, I'd say there was indeed significant Northern Aggression.
When one considers the politics in places like Missouri, where successful businessmen were either required to swear an oath to the Union or were forcibly divested of all their resources by Union troops and sent from their property with the clothes on their backs, their goods and buildings either siezed or destroyed, I'd say there was plenty of aggression there, too. Even Custer got in on it, hanging civillian men and boys in the Carolinas while claiming they were spies with an aggression which embarassed even Union troops.(Why'd you think they sent him out west? As a reward?? Hint: There was no base at Thule to assign him to.)
Southern Secessionists just didn't like Lincoln's looks, and that's all that really mattered to them.
I'd say it was more than just looks, and if you look at the map of the 1860 election, the battle lines were drawn at the ballot box.
As for:Slavery's popularity and eventual legality was almost entirely a function of the size of a state's slave population. In Northern states, where slaves never exceeded 1% of the population, slavery was relatively quickly and easily abolished.
, that is as fine a piece of circular reasoning as I have ever seen. Because they are fewer, the institution is less popular? Or are there fewer because the institution is less popular? Of course, either way, it is easiest to divest a smaller number of people of their property, whatever form that property takes, if there are fewer of them than those who want to take it. We're seeing that now, with a large welfare and entitlement class voting for a larger chunk of people's paychecks, only the numbers are still somewhat balanced.
With that balance comes conflict, and we hear mumblings from many quarters of schism, even today, just on different issues.
The difference in philosophy was simple. Mr Lincoln supported the notion that the Union was to be preserved at any cost. Southerners saw that as a voluntary arrangement, presenting the thought that 'government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed', and they withdrew that consent.
The Union (Lincoln) waged war to impose that government in the absence of the consent of the Southern population.
Wrong.
Slavery was the only issue which truly mattered to the South.
Neither tariffs nor railroad bridges were ever mentioned in any "Declaration of Causes of Seceding States".
And here is the complete list of "Ordinances of Secession of 13 Confederate States of America".
Go ahead, search if for mention of railroads or tariffs. Not there.
Nor were "a host of other issues," listed.
Slavery, only slavery, it was all about slavery.
Nothing else mattered enough to secede.
Smokin' Joe: "Maryland waited for Virginia's legislature to vote on secession. (envision being surrounded, had Virginia failed to seceede and seceeding). By the time that was done, the Legislature had been placed under arrest and was sequestered at Fort McKinley, and it was never allowed to vote on secession."
Your memory of history is very selective here.
Yes, agreed -- no doubt you are correct that many Marylanders favored secession. However, many others did not.
So here is the actual sequence of events relating to Maryland and other Border States:
So, up to this point, only the Deep South has seceded. All other Slave-owning States are still in the Union.
Now comes the Battle of Fort Sumter, on April 12, followed by Lincoln's declaration of insurrection.
This list could go on & on.
By war's end, Confederate forces had invaded Union states and territories of Maryland, Pennsylvania, western Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.
Yes, some of these were relatively minor operations, but that was not for lack of intention, only of means.
Had Southern forces been physically able to do more damage to the Union, they would have.
So, especially in the beginning, it was almost entirely a War of Southern Aggression against the Union.
Smokin' Joe: "As for slavery in the Northern States, the percentage of slaves had dwindled in the face of waves of immigrants, who worked more cheaply and did not have to be provided for. That is the very dynamic which would have eventually made slavery defunct in the south as well."
Wrong again.
Slave populations in Northern States were never significant -- not ever.
Less than one percent, possibly a bit more in certain places such as New York City or Philadelphia.
That's the reason, when Pennsylvania (1780) & New York (1799) abolished slavery it was done gradually, over a period of decades -- no new slaves allowed, existing slaves to remain indentured until they died.
All original Northern states abolished slavery before 1800.
All new northern states abolished slavery as a condition of their entry to the Union.
I've seen no record of Northern slave owners ever being compensated for their "loss of property."
No slave owning state abolished slavery after New York in 1799.
Smokin' Joe: "that is as fine a piece of circular reasoning as I have ever seen. Because they are fewer, the institution is less popular? Or are there fewer because the institution is less popular? Of course, either way, it is easiest to divest a smaller number of people of their property, whatever form that property takes, if there are fewer of them than those who want to take it. "
Nothing circular about it -- it's a simple hisorical fact: in Northern states where slave populations were small, slavery was relatively quickly and easily abolished.
But in Deep South States, where slave populations approached 50% and more, slavery was a non-negotiable condition.
So, any perceived threat against slavery in those states was cause for secession and war.
Those are the facts of history.
Right.
If you read a history of railroad development, you will find this was an issue as early as the 1820s. Incidentally, Calhoun was raising a rukus in the South Carolina Legislature about tarrifs at about the same time. The entire situation, the degree of emnity which would pit the South and North against each other, did not develop overnight, it took decades to build.
As for Hicks, >spit!<, Maryland's traitorous governor was the one who told the State Militia to place their arms in the armory and wait for the call. He not only never issued the call, he had the arms confiscated, which was why there were street riots and what might be considered guerilla actions instead of militia action to repulse the invaders.
My family was in MD in the 1600s, and yes, my rembrance of MD history is a mite 'selective'--somee of it was handed down by sources not in the Union history books.
I would remind you that the MD Legislature could seceede even without Hicks' signature, had they been allowed to vote. The State Legislature was not going to seceede until Virginia did, and by your own timeline, Virginia was still voting on secession 3 months later than the MD vote you cite.
By then, the Legislature was under house arrest.
As for "invasions" of West(ern) Virginia, it wasn't--it was all just Virginia at the time. What were the Union Forces doing there, if not an invasion?
Pennsylvania regulars skirmishing with Confederate (Maryland confederates?) at Point of Rocks (MD) at the fall line of the Potomac? What were the PA soldiers doing in Maryland? (Hint--they invaded!)
Skirmishes do not necessarily indicate that one side or the other invaded anywhere, but if you will recall, "border" states were, to at least a significant portion of their populace, "occupied". Entire regiments of their citizenry fought for the South. When the locals engaged in defending their farms and homes against Northern Regiments (especially from another State), I would not call that 'southern' aggression, but self-defense.
Certainly, it pales in comparison to the rampant destruction the Union Forces did in the Shenandoah Valley and to Tennessee and points East on the march to Georgia.
You misread the timeline. Go look again.
Now, suppose Marylanders had been allowed to vote on secession, as were, for example, Virginians -- how would Maryland have voted?
We don't know, of course. But here's what we do know for certain:
Roughly 25,000 Marylanders served in the Confederate Army.
About 60,000 served in the Union Army.
That sounds to me like Marylanders favored the Union more than two to one.
Another indication is that Maryland's slave population was about 25%, and that seems to be right on the border of secession -- states with more than 25% seceded, states with fewer than 25% slaves stayed in the Union.
Smokin' Joe: "As for "invasions" of West(ern) Virginia, it wasn't--it was all just Virginia at the time. What were the Union Forces doing there, if not an invasion?"
The South never deferred to legal niceties when it came to such matters as seizing Union forts, armories, customs houses and ships before a state had officially declared its secession.
Well, in less than a month from Virginia's secession on April 17, West Virginians were meeting to secede from Virginia.
So I say West Virginia was then a Union state, regardless of the "legal niceties". ;-)
Again the point is: the South cared not a whit for "legal niceties" -- whether a state had officially seceded, or not seceded, or declared itself "neutral," didn't matter.
The South sent it's armies where-ever and whenever it felt the need and had the ability.
For example, Confederate raids into West Virginia continued even after it officially became a state.
So, as I've said before, on-balance the war in 1861 was much more a War of Southern Aggression against the Union than Union aggression against the South.
That's the part our defenders of the Southern Cause wish so strongly to forget.
Pardon the delay in responding to your post.
Analogy is the refuge of a depleted argument. Pacific war conditions involving a militarily hostile foreign country capable of inflicting mortal damage to its enemies almost 80 years in separation do not reflect the conditions in Lincoln's cabinet in 1861; therefore the Japanese comparison is unfit for discussion on this thread.
"Under international law of the era, declaration of a blockade is an act of war...
Correct. And that is the basis for the Federal Court ruling that many on different forums here have cited you in the past. But you continue to mimic considered responses by using circular logic instead of accepting the fact of the court ruling.
Your arguments about relevance do not change the fact that Lincoln's action in April of 1861 was the war’s Official beginning.
Four and a half months later? That's not a delay, that's showing up for the party weeks after everyone else has gone home.
Greetings from Boston.
The delay was beyond my control.
Pardon the delay in responding to you.
The documents to which you refer were perhaps historical in some fashion, but were not official statements of purpose. They represented the opinion of their authors only.
As stated, which is factual and with specificity, there were a total of 11 state legislatures or conventions, that published official secession documents around the beginning of the war.
If taken altogether, these 11 were ordinances officiating the secession act itself adopted by the 11 state conventions, legislatures, or popular referendum. .
With regard to the official documents of secession, none of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union.
Continuing this line of conversation is merely going to frustrate you, because for about 150 years, historians have searched for some "official" cause of secession..........without success.
Pardon the delay in responding to you.
The documents to which you refer were perhaps historical in some fashion, but were not official statements of purpose. They represented the opinion of their authors only.
As stated, which is factual and with specificity, there were a total of 11 state legislatures or conventions, that published official secession documents around the beginning of the war.
If taken altogether, these 11 were ordinances officiating the secession act itself adopted by the 11 state conventions, legislatures, or popular referendum. .
With regard to the official documents of secession, none of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union.
Continuing this line of conversation is merely going to frustrate you, because for about 150 years, historians have searched for some "official" cause of secession..........without success.
You might wish that, but it is not the case.
As an example, Texas held a state-wide referendum on their Declaration of Secession. It was an up or down vote; the votes came in overwhelmingly "up," and Texas seceded.
It was obviously far more than "the opinion of the authors."
With regard to the official documents of secession, none of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union.
That's about as blatantly wrong as it is possible to be.
I'm not going to waste my time on you -- if you're going to dismiss what the states themselves said, you're beyond reason.
Leonard Pitts has never been right in his life.
Slavery was at best a secondary issue, taxation being the primary cause.
Slavery was doomed anyway due to the accelerating industrialization of the country. There is no way that a slave dominated economy could match an industrialized economy.
The key to everything bad about America.
If you’re a Federalist...it had better be about slavery..otherwise the alternative leads you to the potential for another CW.
It looks like it was obvious to anyone except to you that that was not the point.
I stated that, “With regard to the official documents of secession, none of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union.”
Your response: “That's about as blatantly wrong as it is possible to be.”
Well, let's see if the official Texas secession document mentions slavery as a reason for secession, as you contend....
TEXAS............ AN ORDINANCE
To dissolve the Union between the State of Texas and the other States united under the Compact styled “the Constitution of the United States of America.”
WHEREAS, The Federal Government has failed to accomplish the purposes of the compact of union between these States, in giving protection either to the persons of our people upon an exposed frontier, or to the property of our citizens, and
WHEREAS, the action of the Northern States of the Union is violative of the compact between the States and the guarantees of the Constitution; and,
WHEREAS, The recent developments in Federal affairs make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression; THEREFORE,
SECTION 1.— We, the people of the State of Texas, by delegates in convention assembled, do declare and ordain that the ordinance adopted by our convention of delegates on the 4th day of July, A.D. 1845, and afterwards ratified by us, under which the Republic of Texas was admitted into the Union with other States, and became a party to the compact styled “The Constitution of the United States of America,” be, and is hereby, repealed and annulled; that all the powers which, by the said compact, were delegated by Texas to the Federal Government are revoked and resumed; that Texas is of right absolved from all restraints and obligations incurred by said compact, and is a separate sovereign State, and that her citizens and people are absolved from all allegiance to the United States or the government thereof.
SEC. 2. This ordinance shall be submitted to the people of Texas for their ratification or rejection, by the qualified voters, on the 23rd day of February, 1861, and unless rejected by a majority of the votes cast, shall take effect and be in force on and after the 2d day of March, A.D. 1861. PROVIDED, that in the Representative District of El Paso said election may be held on the 18th day of February, 1861.
Done by the people of the State of Texas, in convention assembled, at Austin, this 1st day of February, A.D. 1861.
[Ratified Feb. 23, 1861 by a vote of 46,153 for and 14,747 against]
So as you can see, it is you that is blatantly wrong.
What you think the ordinances said, they do not. It is you that seems to be beyond reason.
I said: “With regard to the official documents of secession, none of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union.”
You said: “That’s about as blatantly wrong as it is possible to be.”
Here are the official documents. Show me where they mention slavery as a cause of secession.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040404171724/http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/ordnces.html#South Carolina
Ah, yes. Well, let's just see about that.
Just to choose Texas:
WHEREAS, The recent developments in Federal affairs make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression....
(emphasis mine)
Said property, in Texas and in the other "slave-holding States" being, of course, slaves -- as is made abundantly clear in the various declarations of secession.
Stop trying to deny what's true, DM.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.