OK - we kind of went off an a tangent here. We spent a long time arguing about whether or not slavery was the cause of secession (spoiler: it was). And now we are at “no document before Fort Sumter made such a claim (that injury & oppression) because it wan’t remotely true then.” So, just to be clear, your are now claiming that injury and oppression (either one) was not a cause for secession for the first 7 states? So what was the cause of their secession? (Hint: slavery).
Then you say “Indeed, the records show that Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee & Arkansas were the reasons Jefferson Davis ordered war on Fort Sumter, not “money flows from Europe”” WTF? How is this on topic to the question of whether or not slavery was the root cause of secession?
So, to prevent us from going too far afield, my argument is as follow:
Slavery (maintaining slavery in the existing states, expansion of slavery into the territories, and enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act) was the primary cause of secession. While there were other elements of friction between the North and South, slavery was the overriding issue.
The reason the South was fighting was to defend slavery. The Union was fighting to maintain the Union (yes, Virginia, two different sides can have different reasons for fighting). Any discussions regarding the Corwin Amendment, or various northern newspaper editorials is immaterial, as the Union was not (originally) fighting to end slavery.
This Southern reasons for secession was clearly stated in 100% of those Articles of Secession that listed a reason. Those that did not list a specific reason either implied slavery, or did not state a reason.
The Articles of Secession, as published by the various state legislature, were an accurate rendering of the reasons they chose to secede. it was not mere “blather” hiding their real reason, it was the reason (why would they have wanted to hide their real reason, anyway?).
The item that started us towards war (what I call the cause of the war), was the various states choosing to secede. There had been many issues, such as tariffs, in the past, but the tipping point was the passing of Articles of Secession. Anything else that occurred after the passing of those articles (Fort Sumter) was the result of the Articles of Secession. BTW it appears that you’re claiming that “Jefferson Davis ordered war on Fort Sumter”. In earlier posts your’re claiming that Lincoln started the war by wanting to resupply Fort Sumter. How does this jive with your statement that Davis ordered WAR on Fort Sumter?
I hope this helps us keep on topic.
I would like to see the “records” that show Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee & Arkansas were the reasons Jeff Davis ordered war on Fort Sumter.
I don’t have a clue what you mean by money flows from Europe.
BTW - I’m still waiting on your definition of “teeny tiny”. I’m not looking for an exact number, maybe just a range of percentages. Would it be something like 1% 0 3%?
I think we agree on most everything and apologize for any confusion.
Sure, you can say secession caused war, but arguably there was no war before Fort Sumter, so I focus on that — Why did it happen?
Lost Causers tell us it was Lincoln’s “war fleet” which forced peaceloving Jefferson Davis to order the fort “reduced”.
But we have a pre-Sumter quote from Davis himself saying, in effect, he intends to start war at Sumter regardless.
Will post that to you later.
A second point I make is the sharp distinction between Reasons for Secession before & after Sumter.
And it’s important to remember that before Fort Sumter states like Virginia refused to secede just over slavery or tariffs or Black Republicans.
But after Sumter Virginia could claim, at least in their own minds, “injury or oppression” as specified in their Constitution ratification.
So Virginia at least had a constitutionally identifiable “necessity” while none of the previous seven seceded states did.
Anyway, must run now, will check back in later.