Replies

This would actually be a decent argument if the newly elected government had actually performed some action that egregiously violated state equality, and this action had then caused secession.

The "newly elected" government was merely the icing on the cake.

As Jefferson said, when such a time comes when "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another", prudence "requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation".

Likewise, while Jefferson declared secession from Britain on behalf of the colonies, the Southern States declared their secession from the U.S. Feel free to read to get your complete list of causes that had been growing for years.

Unfortunately, these have been posted already in the last couple threads, and you seem to insist upon ignoring them. Luckily not everyone here is so obtuse.

As Jefferson said, when such a time comes when "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another", prudence "requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation".

Which they did. Unfortunately for your case, the causes they declared were primarily associated with the protection of slavery.

I believe only one or two states (could be more, haven't counted recently) listed the tariff as a primary cause, the favorite argument of those who proclaim slavery had "nothing" to do with secession.

Why seceding and precipitating a war over a still very low level of taxation is morally superior to seceding over the protection of slavery is quite beyond me. But that's a common argument.

I find the Texas Declaration particularly interesting for those who claim secession had "nothing" to do with slavery or racism. Apparently somebody forgot to tell the Texans.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

I love the echoing of the form of the Declaration of Independence while utterly rejecting its content.

Since you posted the link, do you seriously stand behind the notion that the above reasons justify secession and war?

I might also note that "all Christian nations" did NOT recognize African slavery as mutually beneficial to both bond and free. Quite the opposite. By the time this was written, almost all Christian nations recognized the exact opposite.