[Heyworth]

Okay, so I'm being hyperbolic and sarcastic, but that's the gist of it. All this talk about navigation laws and warehousing acts and who paid for dredging Charleston harbor is all in service of your side's position, which attempts to downplay the significance of protecting slavery in the decision to secede and emphasizes trade concerns.

And for the record, I'm not questioning that those concerns did cause some sectional friction. The Nullification Crisis shows that. But it wasn't enough to cause secession. Those tensions had been around for decades and the south was still getting richer. No, the overwhelming documentation of the time shows that protecting slavery after the election of LIncoln was the proximate cause of secession.

[PeaRidge]

"Okay, so I'm being hyperbolic and sarcastic"

Those are the traits of many that post here, including many who have left us. Thank you for being truthful in your admission. You can depend on the promise that I will make every attempt to give you facts. In your past posts, you said I was being arrogant. That is right. I had hoped to get your attention, which I see we have.

I believe it was McPherson that said that the proximate cause of secession was the election of Lincoln. People in the South judged him to be not trustworthy. They were right.

But since you like to quote the Secession statement of South Carolina, it begins with the fact that the Constitution was ratified with the protection of the states and the people as the primary motivation, and that with the election of the Republican party, the people of the South believed that the Constitution would no longer afford the equal protections prescribed by the compact.

You must realize that among the millions living in the South in the pre-war years, that some wanted secession in order to become free of the controls instituted by the Federal government upon the people of the South to gain control of its raw materials.

Others did not want secession. It had been a 25 year struggle among the people of the South, as was true in other parts of the country.

One of the most defining points, I think, was the Northern and Western reaction to the efforts of John Brown to create a slave resurrection. For decades, people in the North had been advocating the outright killing...murder...of Southern people. That was outrageous.

When it became reality at Harper's Ferry, the people of the South steeled themselves to what they predicted would be a social and political onslaught from the North. And many predicted war.

None of this in the South had anything to do with slavery. It was sectional survival.

You must remember at the time that slave importations had been eliminated in the early 1800s. Practically all slaves were 3rd and 4th generation Americans. They were essentially stable, receiving the basic needs, and rising more and more in the overall society.

My family owned slaves. Sure they produced a net profit, but only the plantations produced the profits depicted in movies and books. Most farmers were making a good living, but it was modest.

In the 1850s, most farm owners had grown up with those that were slaves and worked for them. There were all sorts of friendships, family loyalties, and concepts of responsibilities. If as a farm owner, you told the slaves they were free and asked them to go...it was widely known that they would have very few pathways of survival. So, you let them live on your land, gave them food, clothing, and housing. They in turn worked for you. That was better than turning them out for someone else to have to care for.

The other aspect was their worth as sources of labor. That was very addictive to those needing hands on the farm as well as some city dwellers. It is no doubt true that slave owners were tied to their slaves. But it has been written that if there were a viable alternative, many would have taken it.

I can see your obsession with your concept of the evil of slavery, but rest assured that despite the fact that 1860 agrarian living was difficult and dangerous (as shown in the film "The Outlaw Josey Wales")the real motivation for most in the South was the stability of the system. The fear of slave rebellion was extreme.

I have in my possession a letter written by my great, great, great grandmother to her daughter, dated December 18, 1860. In it, nowhere does she mention the protection of the benefits of slavery as a cause of the pending secession. She expresses the deep fear of herself and her husband that the slave population will rise up and murder them. Since the major revolt in Haiti and the various murderous small revolts throughout the South, this was a real fear among the people of the time.

The protections afforded by and financial stability of the perpetuation of slavery were very strong motivating factors for many.

But you must not focus too much on slavery. Remember that according to many on your side, the North was a vibrant, rich, productive society. Why would a newly elected President risk all of that by sending a fleet to Charleston and Florida, and calling the militia up and declaring a blockade. None of that had anything to do with slavery.

I appreciate your need to be hyperbolic and sarcastic, but you are resorting to emotional responses in avoidance of the important facts of the time.