Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: MeganC
The Civil War was not started over slavery...

Really? I thought I saw a reference to that somewhere...ah yes:

Declarations of Secession

South Carolina

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

Mississippi

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. 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. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Georgia

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

Texas

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

Now mind you, I've only excerpted from these Declarations of Secession, but what I've presented clearly shows the prominence that the institution of slavery had for those secessionists.

76 posted on 05/03/2011 3:19:54 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]


To: rockrr
what I've presented clearly shows the prominence that the institution of slavery had for those secessionists

who's questioning the prominence of slavery in 1861? it was prominent in 1776 as well. but it wasn't just a white superiority/morality issue (the north held their own just fine when it came to being racist, slave-trading, (re)colonizing scum), it was economic and political as well.

the issue re: slavery was whose right was it to regulate it, and at that time, the right was still reserved to the states. the northern states wanted to control expansion of slavery (via the federal government which had no such charter), thus contracting southern influence in the union's federal government in perpetuity and subjugating them to northern control - i.e. control the expansion of slavery (forget the blacks, we can just ship 'em out of here) and we control those southern agricultural states and all their revenue dollars. not quite the "union" the southern states were promised in 1789, eh?

Oh, and of course there were all those other things you didn't excerpt that were listed in the declarations and ordinances of secession. but those are summaries...feel free to reference the decades of congressional speeches you keep ignoring while polluting other threads as well.
85 posted on 05/03/2011 4:12:26 PM PDT by phi11yguy19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson