Replies

Spin, spin, spin. The fact is that the four states that bothered to lay out a declaration of causes did so as a public statement of the reasons for their actions. The secession conventions established committees to draw up these documents, and the body of the conventions voted to approve them. To call them "non-binding" willfully misses the point. The ordinances are simple legal documents saying "we're out of here." The declarations were approved documents of the conventions laying out their reasons. Clearly they were expressing not only the thinking of the convention, but how they wanted to present their reasoning to the world.

Out of the 21 total declarations, ordinances, and other secession documents only 6 mention slavery in any context beyond a geographical reference (and only 5 of them mention it at substantial length - the sixth is in a single brief clause).

How many mention tariffs? Georgia does. South Carolina does in Rhett's appeal to the other states. Who else? And by "geographical reference" do you mean the constant references in the documents of the regions as either 'slave-holding" and "non-slave-holding". That gives away the game right there.

(interestingly enough half that document is a list of grievances against the north for tax hikes and tariffs).

More like less than a third, but what slavery talk is there is prime stuff. "Experience has proved that slaveholding States cannot be safe in subjection to non-slaveholding States. Indeed, no people can ever expect to preserve its rights and liberties, unless these be in its own custody. To plunder and oppress, where plunder and oppression can be practiced with impunity, seems to be the natural order of things."

Man, talk about irony challenged. Then there's the last line: "We ask you to join us in forming a Confederacy of Slaveholding States." Not a confederacy of low-tariff, foreign-shipper-using states. A confederacy of slave-holding states.

"Spin, spin, spin"

You have the right to your opinion, but don't confuse it with being the authority on truth.

"To call them "non-binding" willfully misses the point."

Any point is opinion unless they were binding. And they weren't.

"How many mention tariffs? Georgia does. South Carolina does in Rhett's appeal to the other states. Who else?"

As shown, all listed a variety of reasons that led them to act in secession. You are not going to throw out another red-herring, one issue cause of secession and start a new line of discussion.

"Experience has proved that slaveholding States cannot be safe in subjection to non-slaveholding States. Indeed, no people can ever expect to preserve its rights and liberties, unless these be in its own custody. To plunder and oppress, where plunder and oppression can be practiced with impunity, seems to be the natural order of things."

And by labeling that statement as slavery oriented is "willful misrepresentation". That has to do with the Liberty of the people and the safety of their lives. But since it is obvious to all and ignored by you in another attempt at being argumentative, it is a moot point.

"Man, talk about irony challenged. Then there's the last line: 'We ask you to join us in forming a Confederacy of Slaveholding States.' Not a confederacy of low-tariff, foreign-shipper-using states. A confederacy of slave-holding states."

That's right! It was a Confederacy of slave holding, low-tariff, free trade states, that was opening the Mississippi to European trade. A Confederacy of slave holding, low-tariff free trade states that would exist South of the Union.

The Union, where slavery was still very legal and being practiced, could continue on its own merry way. They then could have abolished slavery where they wanted and when they wanted.

And with secession, why would this powerful Union care about the issue of slavery. They had the West to supply the food, and the maritime industry to continue to trade with Europe.

In March of 1861, most public opinion was reflected in the following:

"In addition to all this, the commander of the Federal army, General Winfield Scott, was very emphatic in endorsing the views of the New York Tribune and other papers, to the effect that secession was the proper course for the southern people to pursue, and his oft- repeated expression, 'Wayward sisters, part in peace,' seemed to meet the full approval of the great body of the people of the North."

And why not. The slavery issue had seceded from their authority. It was no longer a problem for the Union. It was gone with the South.