Replies

Well, the fact is that the secessionists were just wrong. In their declaration of "secession," the slaveholders in Mississippi argued that they had no choice but to secede because they had become totally dependent upon slaves. Specifically, they argued:

"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.

The slaveholders argued that they had become unfit for outdoor work and that they needed the slaves to perform the outdoor work:

"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."

It sounds pretty pathetic, doesn't it? How could the world expect these people to degrade themselves by working outdoors? How could they face the future without slaves to care for them? They had no choice; "secession" provided their only hope.

Well, like I said, they were wrong. After they lost their slaves and became reconstructed, most of them regained their self-respect and learned that indeed they could make it on their own. All it took was a little tough love. Nowadays, their descendants accept without question their ability and need to work.

The "secessionists" were just trapped in a culture of dependency. Now, everyone is grateful for what Lincoln accomplished. No one is doing the "secessionists" any favor by continuing to hold them up to ridicule. Why don't you just let all of this go, for their sakes?

Well, the fact is that the secessionists were just wrong. In their declaration of "secession," the slaveholders in Mississippi argued that they had no choice but to secede because they had become totally dependent upon slaves. Specifically, they argued:

Even if your claim is true, it does not speak to their right to leave if they so chose.

You and others are constantly preoccupied with their reasons for leaving, and deliberately ignore their right to do so.

You do this because if the question is focused on their rights, you lose the debate. You persistently insist that it be focused on everything but their right to leave, because along that avenue you have no valid argument.

You simply cannot get to the result you want (that the Union was right) if you go down that path, so this is why you refuse to look at the issue as a matter of the rights of the Southern states.

You only want to focus on their reasons because those are anachronistically unpopular now.

Sometimes we think we know what turns out to be something entirely misunderstood.

You should rethink your beginning assumptions about my response to you.