Replies

I think that you need to change your table for the following reasons:

Alabama Secession Ordinance - it gives as a reason for rebellion the election of Lincoln who is "avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions" of the state. The domestic institution referred to is clearly slavery. What other institution could it be? So I believe that a 'Y' belongs in the 'Slavery as a Cause' section and the emphasis should be moderate.

Texas - their secession ordinanec contains the phrase "the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States..." Again a clear reference to slaves. Emphasis should be heavy since it is the sole specific reason given, and is clearly the violations that the SO refers to.

Also you place the importance of the Secession Ordinances on the same level as the Declarations of the Causes of Secession. That isn't appropriate since the declaration of causes were meant to be the southern equivilent of the Declaration of Independence penned by Thomas Jefferson. These were their justification for their actions. Their record for posterity of the reasons for the causes which impelled the separation. As you admit defense of slavery, while not always the only reason, was the issue mentioned more often than any other. It was clearly by far the single, most important reason for the rebellion.

Finally, I believe that your final totals are a little misleading. A total of the reasons other than slavery given more emphasis than slavery would be useful. It would show, I believe, that compared to all other reasons, slavery was the cause mentioned more often and given more importance than any other reason.

You are speaking reasonably. You don't expect a return on that investment, do you?

Walt

Alabama Secession Ordinance - it gives as a reason for rebellion the election of Lincoln who is "avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions" of the state. The domestic institution referred to is clearly slavery. What other institution could it be?

Practically any issue of states rights. Notice the plural of the word "institutions." That indicates clearly that they meant for it to refer to more than one thing, of which they did not elaborate. Typical language use of the time employed a singular when the term "institution" was applied to slavery alone - i.e. "our peculiar institution" was one common way of phrasing it. Therefore you cannot say with certainty that they were saying slavery, and in fact it looks as if they intentionally left the issue open by saying "institutions" with a plural.

Texas - their secession ordinanec contains the phrase "the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States..." Again a clear reference to slaves.

That's a geographic reference. I believe Virginia's had a geographic reference as well. But geographic references to the "slave states," a term that was used interchangably for decades with the south be it on the issue of slavery or something entirely unrelated. Therefore it would not be accurate to mistake geography for a stated cause.

Emphasis should be heavy since it is the sole specific reason given, and is clearly the violations that the SO refers to.

What on earth are you smoking, non-seq? Your illogic on this issue is approaching Wlat proportions, and that is not good thing. It's a statement about geography used in passing for precisely that purpose. Nowhere does it emphasize anything about slavery. Compared to what was said, it is virtually negligable and could just as easily have been substituted with the term "southern states" or "states of dixie" or whatever you like with virtually no change on the rest of the ordinance.