The Confederate battle flag continues to be a symbol of regional pride

freelancestar ^ | 2/10/2004 | BUFFY RIPLEY

[stainlessbanner]

IS THE Confederate battle flag a symbol of hate? Although there are certain connotations that have been improperly associated with the Confederate flag, there are still many people within the American population who display it to show pride in their heritage.

Heritage, not hate.

The Confederate States of America was a compilation of southern states that seceded from the United States of America. Following the formation of this new government, the grievances between the North and South produced hostility and warfare.

Our differences divided us as a nation. Yet during that period, there arose a certain Southern solidarity that people cannot forget.

A liberal federal judge has banned the display of Confederate flags in cemeteries near our area. Could he, not the Southerners who revere the flag, be the prejudiced one?

Only two days out of 365 in a year are people allowed to fly the Confederate battle flag in Point Lookout in Maryland. There have been many appeals, but the judge concluded that it "could" cause hateful uprisings and counter-actions to prevent the flag from flying.

So much for those who died during the Civil War bravely fighting for the South. 3,300 Confederate soldiers died at Point Lookout Cemetery, and the flag would commemorate their lives and their deaths.

Although many people do not understand or agree with what the Confederate States of America stood for, these men gave their lives and had the courage to stand up for what they believed in.

In fact, Confederates fought for the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution--states' rights, no taxation without fair representation and freedom from oppressive government.

They weren't fighting for hate. They weren't fighting to destroy a race.

They were fighting to preserve the government that they had chosen--the Confederate States of America--the government that allowed them to preserve their own way of life.

Fact: The overwhelming majority of Southerners never owned slaves. Slavery as an institution was fading, and making way for more pragmatic agricultural practices, including the use of immigrant labor.

Too many people today do not agree with what Southern soldiers stood for, often basing their opinion on faulty history or willful ignorance. That doesn't mean that we should respect the soldiers from Dixie any less.

Ignorance has turned the South's past into a history of hate. I have grown up in the South. I am not racist. I consider myself to be an open-minded person.

I do have Dixie Pride, though.

I grew up in a Civil War town that has a Confederate Cemetery in the middle of it. There's even a store called "Lee's Outpost."

Yes, there are people who live in Fredericksburg who consider the Confederate flag as a symbol of hatred and racism. However, they do not know what it is truly about.

The war between the states was a time when brother fought against brother. It was a time when people didn't have the choice to be passive.

Ultimately, regardless of one's feelings about the flag, banning the Confederate flag is unconstitutional under the Bill of Rights. Flying the flag is considered a form of speech--and if it is legal to burn an American flag, it should be legal without question to fly the Confederate one.

I do own a Confederate flag. I'm a Southerner, proud of my heritage, and I take pride in the fact that my ancestors rose to the occasion and fought for their form of government.

They did not give their lives to protect slavery in the South. They did not die to keep African-Americans from sharing the same liberties and freedoms that they were blessed with. They believed they were fighting for their families, homes and states against an oppressive government in the North.

The book "The South Was Right" provides many facts to support this.

In the end, it almost doesn't matter why they fought. We claim to be a nation that believes in freedom of speech, where everyone can have their own beliefs and not be looked down on for it.

Are we or aren't we?

What makes this country great is that we have the right to make up our own minds about things. People are asked if they believe in freedom of speech. They reply, "Yes, of course I believe in freedom of speech."

Yet when they don't agree with the speech, sometimes they contradict themselves.

As a nation with millions of citizens, we will never agree on any principles or ideas as a whole--except for the fact that freedom cannot be replaced, and rights cannot be sacrificed.

So why should the Confederate flag be an exception? Free speech applies to everyone, and Southerners have great reasons to be proud of their past.

BUFFY RIPLEY is a sophomore at Virginia Commonwealth University.

[stand watie]

propaganda????

NOPE. but don't you wish it were.

what the real propaganda is, is that the WBTS was really about anything BUT freedom for dixie.

i will not argue that there were not other MINOR/SECONDARY causes of the war but LIBERTY was the MAIN reason.

SIMPLISTIC???

YEP. all general statements about causes of ANY war are to some degree generalizations AND simplistic, BUT i'm 100% correct about this one. southerners were fighting for FREEDOM not for some rich guy to own slaves!

the FOOLS on FR & elsewhere who maintain that chattal slavery was any more than a minor cause of the war for dixie LIBERTY are devided into 3 groups:

1. the LIARS & propagandists for the unionist cause,

2. the IGNORANT & STUPID &

3.the REVISIONISTS of the most radical school of damnyankee, LEFTist (some would say MARXIST!), elitist, south-HATING,northeastern academia.

free dixie,sw

[capitan_refugio]

I recently acquired a reprint of the "Lost State of Franklin" by Samuel Cole Williams. An interesting history of the American Frontier in the 1780s. The provisional State was named for Benjamin Franklin, although the original name may have been "Frankland," meaning "land of the free."

[rustbucket]

I don't have anything on the state of Franklin. My ancestors and relatives were in SW North Carolina and North Central North Carolina when the state of Franklin existed, so they were not in the area that formed Franklin. Some of your ancestors were from East Tennessee, as I remember. Were they in Franklin?

I do have the book Mountain Rebels, East Tennessee Confederates and the Civil War, 1860-1870 by W. Todd Groce. Bought it in Cades Cove last fall. The rebels picked on the Union people in East Tennessee in the first two years of the war, and the reverse happened during the last two years of the war and for some time after the war. People were shot, beaten, and hanged on both sides. Some of it personal vendettas, some of it retribution (on both sides). Pretty country though.

[capitan_refugio]

I had relatives from the western part of the State, near Dyersburg, who were Confederates. One was captured at Fort Donelson and later exchanged. He survied the war. I had other Tennessee relatives from the hills in the east, mostly around Maryville and Blount Co. This was pretty much a backwater as far as the war was concerned and I have no evidence as to service, although family history has them as being loyal to the Union.

An aside regarding the "State" of Franklin. The most famous person born within the confines of the "state," while it existed, was Davy Crockett. So the old lyric, "Born on a mountain top in Tennessee, greatest state in the land of the free." is, at least in part, NOT TRUE!!

[capitan_refugio]

Stand, at least you are true to form. You contend "liberty" was the main southern cause for secession. Let us investigate the declaration of several of the secessionist states, to find out what they said the reasons were. That's fair, isn't it - I mean their reasons in their own words?

Here's what Georgia said:

"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." - approved by the Georgia legislature, January 29, 1861

Here's what Mississippi said:

"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

"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." - from "A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union"

Here's what Texas said:

"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." - from "A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union"

Here's what South Carolina said:

"We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

"In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: 'No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.'

"This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River." - from "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union"

Need more proof? Let's review some of the contemporary comments made by the southern secessionist leaders:

"First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere - in fact, it is the only question which in the least affects the results of the election." - Georgian Henry Benning to Howell Cobb, personal letter.

"African slavery is the cornerstone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism." -Congressman Lawrence Keitt of South Carolina, speech to the House, January 25, 1860.

"[The Confederate government's] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rest, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery ... is his natural and normal condition" - Alexander Stephens, CSA Vice President, March 30, 1861.

"Sir, I do firmly believe that domestic slavery, regulated as ours is, produces the highest toned, the purest, best organization of society that has ever existed on the face of the Earth ... the moment the House undertakes to legislate upon this subject, it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood." - Congrssman James Hammond of South Carolina, speech to the House.

"I want Cuba, ... I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason - for the planting and spreading of slavery." - Senator Albert Gallatin Brown of Mississippi (quoted in "Battle Cry of Freedom, pg 106)

"What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?" - Robert Hunter of Virginia, discussing the proposal to form slave regiments in the CSA army.

So Stand, I ask you, in your own words, who is a (1) "LIAR", (2) "IGNORANT & STUPID" or (3) "REVISIONIST"? You are a very knowledgable person, if not on the opinionated side. Can you keep the conversation civil, without the name calling or being otherwise offensive? I appreciate your point of view, and as you might recall, agree with you from time to time about the contributions of the southern and native american heritage.

[capitan_refugio]

Although my #985 is addressed to Stand, I should have pinged you about the subject matter, in response to your post.

Gov. Pickens, in the post-secession speech was trying to put on the best face. Indeed, South Carolina, in its declaration regarding its reasons for secession, went into much greater detail about the nature of it political bonds with the Union, than did the other rebel states. Pickens provides a reasoned, rational argument about South Carolinian gripes. What was the "wanton and lawless course" Pickens was talking about? The Northern failure to enforce fugative slave laws. What were the "rights and ancient privileges" he was afraid of losing? The right to own slaves.

I did not say Pickens was untruthful, simply, he was putting the best face on a bad situation.

"The important question is what prompted Lincoln to order armed warships to Charleston while everyone knew it would cause war."

By the time Lincoln tried to reinforce Ft. Sumter, even before Lincoln was inaugurated, Southern forces had already committed a number of blatant acts of war, including the seizing of Federal Revenue Cutters in several harbors, and seizing Federal arsenals in Florida and other states (in Dec 1860 and Jan 1861). Lincoln's decision was a calculated provocation. Ruffin and his ilk went for the bait hook, line, and sinker.

[capitan_refugio]

Your 5-6% number (percentage of slaveholders in the south) I have seen quoted before; but I know it to be controversial. I have seen other data which represent that as many as 1/3rd of the white soldiers from Mississippi, Alabama, and other states of the deep south were from "slave-holding families." As is usually the case, war is a young man's fight. I would not be surprised that many of the teenaged rebel soldiers did not individually own slaves; nor would I be surprised that they came from families that did. I know you don't like the 1860 Census data, but the number of slaves in the deep south nearly equalled the total number of whites. That would mean, roughly, the average slaveholder (based on your 5% figure) would have owned about 20 slaves (20 to 1 ratio). I thought the average number was much lower - more like 3 to 1. Do you happen to know what that number might be?

Before you call me "SILLY" and "IGNORANT" again, let me find my citations for your perusal.

[capitan_refugio]

These data are from the Census Archives at the University of Virginia (a bastion of northern revisionism - sarcasm tags off). These are the percentage of "slave-owning families" as a fraction of total free households in the state:

49% Mississippi
46% South Carolina
37% Georgia
35% Alabama
35% Florida
29% Louisiana
28% Texas
28% North Carolina
26% Virginia (including what became West Virginia)
25% Tennessee
20% Arkansas

You can add to these the border states:
23% Kentucky
13% Missouri
12% Maryland
03% Delaware

Even if these figures are incomplete, due to errors and omissions in the census, they probably represent a reasonable estimate. Your statement was "for the other 94-96% of southerners, [the preservation of chattel slavery] was NOT an issue AND our ancestors were NOT going to die for some rich guy's 'right to own slaves'"

It seems to me that the data suggests that throughout the Confederate States, about 1/4th to 1/2rd of all families were slave-owners. It is more likely that a significantly higher number of rebel soldiers had the preservation of slavery as a motivating force for fighting. Slaves represented a large capital investment; sometimes the value of the slaves as part of an estate was greater than the value of the land.

Given that the higher ranks in the CSA officer corps came primarily from the plantation and political class, I would suggest the percentage of officers coming from slave-holding families to be even higher.

"You[r] position is SILLY, IGNORANT & NOT the TRUTH." Care to re-think that, in light of the facts?

[WhiskeyPapa]

Your 5-6% number (percentage of slaveholders in the south) I have seen quoted before; but I know it to be controversial. I have seen other data which represent that as many as 1/3rd of the white soldiers from Mississippi, Alabama, and other states of the deep south were from "slave-holding families."

In MS, LA and SC, slave ownership devolved on @ 50% of whites and on 1/3 in the rest of the so-called seceded states.

Stand Watie has seen that data many times.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

The important question is what prompted Lincoln to order armed warships to Charleston while everyone knew it would cause war.

The war was on even before Lincoln took office.

December 29, 1860 South Carolina militia storm Federal forts in Charleston harbor, which had been evacuated the previous day by Major Anderson, who withdrew his troops into Ft. Sumter in the middle of the harbor. Three prisoners were taken.

January 4 Alabama militia sieze the U.S. arsenal at Mt. Vernon, AL. Alabama has not yet seceded.

January 5 Alabama militia sieze Ft. Morgan and Ft. Gaines in Mobile Bay.

January 7 Florida militia sieze the Federal fort at St. Augustine. Florida has not yet seceded.

January 8 Florida militia attempting to sieze Ft. Barrancas are driven off by Federal troops.

January 9 South Carolina militia fire on US merchant vessel Star of the West, preventing reinforcement and resupply of Ft. Sumter garrison.

Mississippi secedes.

January 10 Louisiana militia sieze all Federal forts and arsenals in the state. Louisiana has not yet seceded.

Florida (belatedly) secedes. Federal troops abandon Ft. Barrancas. North Carolina militia capture Ft. Johnson and Ft. Caswell. North Carolina has not yet seceded.

January 11 Alabama (belatedly) secedes.

January 12 Florida militia demands the surrender of Federal troops in Ft. Pickens. The demand is refused. Mississippi fortifies Vicksburg and closes the Mississippi River to all traffic.

Mississippi is the only state on the river, at this point, which has seceded.

January 19 Georgia secedes.

January 21 Mississippi militia sieze Ft. Massachussetts and Ship Island.

January 25 Georgia militia sieze the federal arsenal at Augusta. North Carolina calls for a referendum on secession.

January 26 Georgia militia sieze Ft. Jackson and Oglethorpe Barracks.

Louisiana (belatedly) secedes.

To advance these people as heroes is a joke.

Walt

[stand watie]

i've spoken NUMEROUS times before about the so-called "declarations". perhaps this will be the LAST time. (i HOPE so!)

the so-called "declarations of secession" have at least the following problems:

1.the authors were SELF-appointed.

2.NO town/city/county/parish/academic institution/state EVER sponsored and/or approved the author's work.

3. hardly ANYONE read the declarations EXCEPT the authors.

4.FEW people in the southland or elsewhere in 1860-65, who did NOT own slaves (94-95% of southerners!) cared what the few slaveowners thought. (in point of fact MANY of the middle, working & poor white class in dixie dispised the rich slaveowning "elites". had the south won TWBTS, the slavocrats might very well been NEXT on the "hit list", given the FACT that MANY slaveowners collaborated with the damnyankees & the occupying US military forces. the war for dixie liberty was MOSTLY a "peasant revolt" against the faraway central government, which had, in their eyes ceased to represent their interests.)

5.the REVISIONISTS of the mid-1960s "discovered" the declarations, (NOTE: traditional historiographers had ALWAYS known but DISCOUNTED the works as the self-serving rantings of a hand full of slaveowners.) and then attempted to use them to prop up their flimsy and imVho,totally FALSE, assertion that the SOLE cause of the war was the preservation of slavery.

other than these problems, the declarations are really important! (sarcasm button: ON!)

truthfully, i know of NOT even ONE traditional historian/historiographer who believes that the "declarations" are of ANY importance whatever to the PRIMARY causes of the WBTS.

for the leftist, lunatic fringe of revisionists,southHATERS, marxists & their ignorant "useful idiots", the declarations are an EXCUSE to cover-up the, at best, flimsy excuses for the conquest of the southland & an EXCUSE for the depredations on the civilian population of the southland, the torture & murder of THOUSANDS of helpless CSA POWs and other WAR CRIMES.

that TOO is the TRUTH, however unpleasant you may find it.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

the 5-6% of slaveowners is "controversial" ONLY to the revisionists & southHATERS. MOST historians of the period agree with that figure.

in point of fact the percentage is CORRECT. there were FEW slaveowners, but those who did/could afford slaves generally owned MANY. it was more like 50-100 to one in many areas of the deep south, particuliarly in the sugar & cottonraising counties/parishes.

my home county in TX had a total of 4 slaveowners:

one owned a total of one (his wife! btw, his next-to-youngest granddaughter is still living. i interviewed her some years ago for the local community college newspaper.).

one had 4 slaves.

one had 8 in 1850.

the last had evidently 146 at one point (1850 tax data).

the rest of the county population owned NONE!

one county in MS had a total of TWO (2) slaveowners in 1860,each of whom owned more than 200 slaves "of working age" . i don't know what their TOTAL number of slaves was.

face it CPT, slaves were EXPENSIVE & the VAST majority of southerners COULDN'T have bought any slaves IF they had wanted to! (i would like to point out that i'd like to own a mansion, a dozen Ferrari automobiles,the Dallas Cowboys, a 100' yacht, etc.,etc., etc. i have about the same chance to get all those things as the typical white southerner had of EVER buying a slave, given that the NET assets of the average southern male in 1860 was about TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($ 25.00) & that the annual AVERAGE NET income for a family of five was LESS than FIFTY DOLLARS ($ 50.00)!)

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

see # 992.

NOPE,as i KNOW that the census data in the 19th century was fatally flawed.for example, the 1860 census says that NOBODY was living west of the Trinity River (there IS/WAS a place called DALLAS located there!)- the bridges were out that year as a result of flooding; only those persons who lived east of the river were counted.

MUCH of the "data" was GUESSED at. much of it was INVENTED, as SOME enumerators got paid based on the numbers they submitted.

try looking at local/county/parish property tax records (all slaveowning states taxed slaves as PROPERTY! and the taxman always gets his pound of flesh!) for a better snapshot of slaveowning patterns.

Dr Bob C. Riley,a grad school prof. of mine, said in 1976 that ONLY census data after 1890 was largely correct AND that ALL figures previous to 1900 were SUSPECT at best. (NOTE: the 1990 & 2000 census were at least as INCORRECT, though for different & PC reasons!)

free dixie,sw

[capitan_refugio]

I agree with you about the historical problems with the census and the utility of tax records (government seems to get very efficient when it comes to collecting taxes!). However, although the absolute numbers may be somewhat compromised, what was collected (in the absense of outright fraud) represents a reasonable statistical sample of the whole. As with any old database, you need to sift the wheat from the chaff.

[PeaRidge]

Nonsense WP. If they were, Lincoln would have said so in his inaugural when he then would have announced war.

These were, as you have been told on another thread, mostly state facilities dating back to the Revolution. The states were taking back their property.

Your silly mischaracterizatios are shameful: "South Carolina militia storm Federal forts in Charleston harbor" Give me a break.

They were all empty shells, silly. What did they storm...the open doors?

If Lincoln had justifiable reasons, he would have said so and used them.

No, he had to create a sham reason. The war did not begin until Sumter, so go pedal this mess somewhere else.

[PeaRidge]

In fact, here is what you were told just a few days ago:

The U.S. Arsenal at Apalachicola was occupied by Florida troops. Fort Morgan in St. Augustine was occupied by Florida state troops, and Fort Johnson was taken by North Carolina state troops.

The U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge was taken by Louisiana troops along with Forts Phillip, Jackson and Pike, and Macomb. Fort McRae and the naval yard at Pensacola were occupied by Florida troops. Fort Massachusetts was occupied by Mississippi troops.

The arsenal at Augusta was taken by Georgia troops. U. S. Cutter Robert McClellan was taken. The U.S. Mint Custom house and schooner Washington were seized in Louisiana.

None of these various operations resulted in the loss of life due to the fact that these facilities were not defended, and the officials at each either resigned their employment, or in the case of military personnel, they either returned north by boat or train.

Many of the properties were simply abandoned as the union army consolidated its troops from outlying posts.

Others were claimed by the states themselves for the simple reason that they had rightful ownership of the properties. Several of the coastal forts in the south dated back to the revolution and were built and paid for by the individual states, not the federal government, which acted only as conditional tenants to garrison them in defense.

Dozens upon dozens of forts across the south were revolutionary era structures built by the states or colonies. Others were built before the states in which they existed were acquired by the United States itself. In many cases this included the primary defensive fort for major harbors and inlets.

Charleston Harbor's main fort, Fort Moultrie, along with two of the other three major forts there all predated the federal presence. Similar forts were found in all of the original British colonies in the south (VA, NC, SC, GA) and also several of the gulf states. There were defensive positions originally built by the Spanish all over Florida. The harbor defenses of Mobile, Alabama were begun way back in 1699 and built over the following century. Even the "new" forts around Mobile by the civil war had pre-federal components as all US army improvements were built upon existing structures.

Louisiana was another classic example as practically every major fort in the state was a pre-federal structure. The main defense of New Orleans and the Mississippi river mouth, Fort St. Philip, was begun in 1792 by the Spanish on an earlier French fort begun in 1761. The other river mouth defense, Fort Jackson, was originally Fort Bourbon from pre-American days and had only been modernized and built upon by the feds. Fort St. Philip was used prominently in the War of 1812 and in the civil war battle of New Orleans. Several of the other city defenses were built by the Spanish or French and one of its forts on the Mississippi was even built by pirates.

Texas was another classic case of a state dominated by pre-federal forts. Most of the state's forts dated from the Republic of Texas days or earlier. A few far western posts there were built by the feds in the late 1840's, but these tended to be little more than wooden stockades. Most of the central Texas stockades were pre-federal frontier defenses and virtually all of the stone forts in the state dated back to Republic of Texas or Spanish control.

In most cases, state officials and or militia simply walked in and camped out. There was no loss of life or disrepect for the Union troops.

So, another silly, useless Wlat post sinks blub blub.

[4CJ]

The federal congress never declared war while all this occurred. Maybe they considered the events in a different light.

[PeaRidge]

In order to be fair and balanced, lets take a little closer look than what you would like to present:

With each state’s voting on the massive question of secession from the Union, their legislatures determined that a document should be published, outlining the reasoning and causes of their disunion.

None of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned either the tariffs or slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union.

However, four states published their reasoning in individual state decrees.

From these documents, it can be concluded that many different reasons brought these seven states to the same conclusion and action.

Although slavery was mentioned in all four documents as one cause, the following are excerpts from some of these secession documents, and show the diversity of motivations.

Georgia Secession Decree (January, 1861):

“(The Northern States) have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and refused to comply with their constitutional obligations to us in reference to our 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.

“The people of Georgia, after a full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with firmness that (the Northern States) shall not rule over them.”


Mississippi Secession Decree (January, 1861):

“(The North) has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

“Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity (to secede).”


Texas Secession Document (February, 1861)

“The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.”


Louisiana Secession Document (January, 1861):

“The people of Louisiana are unwilling to endanger their liberties and property by submission to the despotism of a single tyrant, or the canting tyranny of pharisaical majorities (in the North).”

Mississippi Secession Document (January, 1861):

"That they have elected a majority of electors for President and Vice-President on the ground that there exists an irreconcilable conflict between the two sections of the Confederacy in reference to their respective systems of labor and in pursuance of their hostility to us and our institutions, thus declaring to the civilized world that the powers of this government are to be used for the dishonor and overthrow of the Southern section of this great Confederacy."

South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession:

"We affirm that these ends for which this government was instituted have been defeated, and the government itself has been destructive of them by the action of the (North).”

Georgia’s document further stated:

“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all.

“In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day.

“Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects.

“Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.

“The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States.

“Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence.

“These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country. But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it.

“After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people.

“The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all. All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies.

“The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success."

[PeaRidge]

"Gov. Pickens, in the post-secession speech was trying to put on the best face."

You repeat the same incorrect argument, as if doing so will validate your premise. But it won't.

Here is the entire pre-secession speech..........when both speeches are the same, "putting on the best face" is an assertion without factual basis:

12/18/1860 Francis Wilkinson Pickens was inaugurated Governor of South Carolina.

Governor Pickens addressed the House as follows:

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives: --

You have called me to preside as Chief Magistrate of South Carolina at a critical juncture in our public affairs. I deeply feel the responsibilities of the position I am about to assume.

For seventy-three years this State has been connected by a Federal compact with co-states under a bond of Union, for great national objects common to all. In recent years there has been a powerful party organized upon principles of ambition and fanaticism, whose undisguised purpose is to divest the Federal Government from external, and turn its power upon the internal interests and domestic institutions of these States.

They have thus combined a party exclusively in the Northern States, whose avowed objects, not only endanger the peace, but the very existence of near one-half the States of this Confederacy. And in the recent election for President and Vice-President of these States, they have carried the election upon principles that make it no longer safe for us to rely upon the powers of the Federal Government or the guarantees of the Federal compact.

This is the great overt act of the people of in the Northern States at the ballot box, in the exercise of their sovereign power at the polls, from which there is no higher appeal recognized under our system of government in its ordinary and habitual operations. They thus propose to inaugurate a Chief Magistrate at the head of the Army and Navy with vast powers, not to preside over the common interests and destinies of all the States alike, but upon issues of malignant hostility and uncompromising war to be urged upon the rights, the interests and the peace of half the States of this Union.

In the Southern States there are two entirely distinct and separate races, and one has been held in subjection to the other by peaceful inheritance from worthy and patriotic ancestors, and all who know the races, well know that it is the only form of government that can preserve both and administer the blessings of civilization with order and in harmony.

Any thing tending to change or weaken this government and the subordination between the races not only endangers the peace, but the very existence of our society itself.

We have for years warned the Northern people of the dangers they were producing by their wanton and lawless course. We have often appealed to our sister States of the South to act with us in concert upon some firm and moderate system by which we might be able to save the Federal Constitution, and yet feel safe under the general compact of union; but we could obtain no fair hearing from the North, nor could we see any concerted plan, proposed by any of our co-States of the South, calculated to make us feel safe and secure.

Under all these circumstances, we now have no alternative left but to interpose our sovereign power as an independent State, to protect the rights and ancient privileges of the people of South Carolina.

This State was one of the original parties to the Federal compact of union. We agreed to it, as a State, under peculiar circumstances; when we were surrounded with great external pressure, for purposes of national protection and to advance the interests and general welfare of all the States equally and Alike; and when it ceased to do this, it is no longer a perpetual union.

It would be an absurdity to suppose it was a perpetual union for our ruin. The Constitution is a compact between co-States and not with the Federal Government. On questions vital, and involving the peace and safety of the parties to the compact, from the very nature of the instrument each State must judge of the mode and measure of protection necessary for her peace and the preservation of her local and domestic institutions,

South Carolina will therefore decide for herself, and will, as she has a right to do, assume her original powers of government as an Independent State, and as such, will negotiate with other powers, such treaties, leagues or covenants, as she may deem proper.

I think I am not assuming too much when I say that our interests will lead her to open her ports free to the tonnage and trade of all nations, reserving to herself the right to discriminate only against those who may be our public enemies.

She has fine harbors, accessible to foreign commerce, and she is in the centre of those extensive agricultural productions, that enter so largely into the foreign trade and commerce of the world; and from the basis of those comforts in food and clothing so essential to the artizans and mechanic laborers in higher latitudes, and which are so essential to the prosperity and success of manufacturing capital in the North and in Europe.

I therefore may safely say it is for the benefit of all who may be interested in commerce, in manufactories, and in the comforts of artizans and mechanic labor everywhere, to make such speedy and peaceful arrangements with us as may advance the interests and happiness of all concerned.

There is one thing certain, and I think it due to the country to say so in advance, that South Carolina is resolved to assert her separate independence; and, as she acceded separately to the compact of union, so she will, most assuredly, secede separately and alone, be the consequences what they may.

And I think it right to say, with no unkind feelings whatever, that, on this point, there can be no compromise, let it be offered from where it may. The issues are too grave and too momentous to admit of any counsel that looks to anything but direct and straightforward independence. In the present emergency, the firmest and most decided measures are the safest and wisest.

To our sister States, who are identified with us in interest and in feeling, we will cordially and kindly look for co-operation and for a future union, but it must be after we have asserted and resumed our original and inalienable rights and powers of sovereignty and independence.

We can then form a government with them, having a common interest with peoples of homogeneous feelings, united together by all the ties that can bind States in one common destiny. From the position we may occupy towards the Northern States, as well as from our own internal structure of society, the government may, from necessity, become strongly military in its organization.

When we look back upon the inheritance that we, as a State, have had in the common glories and triumphant power of this wonderful confederacy, no language can express the feelings of the human heart, as we turn from the contemplation and sternly look to the great future that opens before us.

It is our sincere desire to separate from the States of the North in peace, and leave them to develop their own civilization to their own sense of duty and of interest. But if, under the guide of ambition and fanaticism, they decide otherwise, then be it so.

We are prepared for any event, and, in humble reliance upon that Providence who presides over the destinies of men and nations, we will endeavor to do our duty faithfully, bravely, and honestly. I am now ready to take the oath of office and swear undivided allegiance to South Carolina.

[4CJ]

We are prepared for any event, and, in humble reliance upon that Providence who presides over the destinies of men and nations, we will endeavor to do our duty faithfully, bravely, and honestly. I am now ready to take the oath of office and swear undivided allegiance to South Carolina.

Bump for two excellent posts.