Replies

Slavery was the most widely and consistently cited reason for secession. This is evident from the articles of secession and from various contemporary documents and sources, such as debates in the legislature and convention and newspaper editorials and accounts.

Long before John Brown, the Denmark Vesey conspiracy and Nat Turner's rebellion demonstrated that violent slave revolts were a tangible risk. In addition, poisoning and violent assaults by slaves were feared by the South's slaveholders. John Brown's attack at Harper's Ferry hit a raw nerve.

Yes slavery - specifically violation of the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution by the Northern states was indeed the single most cited reason for secession by the original 7 seceding states. That's because it really was unconstitutional. It was not the real reason why they chose to leave. It could have been remedied and the Northern political establishment and Lincoln offered to remedy it. The Original 7 seceding states weren't interested in any remedy. It was merely the legal pretext to leave which they wanted to do for financial reasons. Slavery was not threatened within the US anyway.

Always left out of these discussions is the fact that 5 states in the Upper South did not choose to leave until ordered by Lincoln to provide troops to attack other states and impose a government on them that they did not consent to.

Slavery was the most widely and consistently cited reason for secession.

Again, if I was going to threaten $700 million in Northern trade and income, I would certainly point to something else to misdirect what I am really doing.

But you keep focusing on the South's alleged reason (as if you have to justify a right to independence) than you are on the actual real point of this discussion, which is the North's reason for invading them.

The North should be on the defensive here. The South had a right to leave, and the North had no right to stop them.

Why did the North invade them? It clearly wasn't because of slavery.

Long before John Brown, the Denmark Vesey conspiracy and Nat Turner's rebellion demonstrated that violent slave revolts were a tangible risk. In addition, poisoning and violent assaults by slaves were feared by the South's slaveholders. John Brown's attack at Harper's Ferry hit a raw nerve.

From what I have read on the topic, they were always afraid of the possibility the slaves would revolt. They had allowed them to become so numerous that they then feared them as a threat.

And of course the North wouldn't punish anyone for sending the John Brown raid. It's just like the Liberal states with ANTIFA or BLM.