FLT-bird:
"uhhh no. We absolutely should not do that.
He said "the South" as you PC Revisionists often do.
That refers to all 12 states that seceded." I know it takes a bit of work, you have to go back over 4 levels of posts, from 234->230->211->179->178 to find the original exchange on this subject.
Here it is:
FLT-bird: "Its important that we not allow political dogma to distort history." TwelveOfTwenty: "You mean like President Lincoln didn't want to abolish slavery even though that's what he did?
Or the secession wasn't about slavery even though at least four of their articles of secession spelled that out?
That's revisionism."
Notice the term "the South" is not mentioned here.
So if we search for where that term "the South" is used, we find it dozens of times in lengthy quotes by FLT-bird, but only rarely by TwelveOfTwenty as in,
"abolitionists in the South", though never in reference to Confederate "Reasons for Secession" documents.
FLT-bird: "I've pointed out several did not issue declarations of causes.
I've pointed out several seceded only after Lincoln chose to start a war to impose government rule on people who did not consent to it.
Those states are part of "the South" too.
You can't just ignore them because its inconvenient for your argument."
In case you've forgotten, the question here is: why did some Southern states declare secession?
So right away we have to admit: not all declared for the same exact reasons, and some gave no reasons.
Of particular note is, the set of reasons before Fort Sumter is remarkably different from those after it.
Those after Fort Sumter focused on coercion, oppression and injustice by the Federal government.
But those before Fort Sumter had different reasons, and those focused first & foremost on slavery.
Of the seven states seceding before Fort Sumter two gave no reasons (Florida and Louisiana), one (Alabama) included its reason (slavery) as a "whereas" in its Ordinance, and four (SC, MS, GA & TX) gave lengthy reasons.
Those reasons have been analyzed in detail and resulted in the accurate chart which you pretend is laughable (because it tells the truth you loathe).
Finally, we have the detailed explanations of Robert Rhett and Alexander Stephens, both of which were widely published and accepted at the time as real.
So, including Alabama's, five states gave us formal reasons for secession and the best you might say is that three of the five include reasons other than slavery.
But not one omits slavery and all dwell on it at great length, even if it's not the first issue they address.
So the conclusion must be that slavery was certainly on the minds of every Democrat Fire Eater secessionist, and indeed, that without slavery (as in 1830) secession could never be sold to a majority of patriotic Southern voters.
FLT-bird: "Alabama did not issue a declaration of causes."
Alabama included this "whereas" in its Ordinance of Secession:
"Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions..."
As you well know, "domestic institutions" is code of "slavery".
FLT-bird: "This is just false...
Rhett went on at great length to explain the primary cause was economic.
The Southern states were being economically exploited by sectional partisan legislation just as the 13 colonies had been by Britain a couple generations earlier."
In fact, Rhett does discuss (and lie about) tariffs & spending, and he also discusses slavery at great length.
So, in his first specific, Rhett claims:
"The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue -- to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures."
But all such taxes before secession in 1861 were passed by Southerners under mostly Democrat Presidents like Madison, Jackson, Polk & Buchanan, never by Republicans.
Further, they promoted the interests of all "mines & manufactures", North, South, East & West.
Next Rhett further complains:
"The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected three-fourths of them are expended at the North."
That's a flat-out lie, only possibly true if by "the North" you mean every state
north of South Carolina!
And then after such non-serious complaints, about half-way through, Rhett gets to the real reason: slavery, and on that one subject he devotes the last half of his argument.
| Reasons for Secession | S. Carolina | Mississippi | Georgia | Texas | Rbt. Rhett | A. Stephens | AVERAGE OF 6 |
|---|
| Historical context | 41% | 20% | 23% | 21% | 20% | 20% | 24% |
|---|
| Slavery | 20% | 73% | 56% | 54% | 35% | 50% | 48% |
|---|
| States' Rights | 37% | 3% | 4% | 15% | 15% | 10% | 14% |
|---|
| Lincoln's election | 2% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 5% | 0% | 3% |
|---|
| Economic issues** | 0 | 0 | 15% | 0% | 25% | 20% | 10% |
|---|
| Military protection | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6% | 0% | 0% | 1% |
|---|
* Alabama listed only slavery in its "whereas" reasons for secession.
** Economic issues include protective tariffs, "fishing smacks" and alleged favoritism to Northerners in Federal spending. ![]()
It turns out there was one more in your long train of spam and BS to refute before putting you on ignore
So if we search for where that term "the South" is used, we find it dozens of times in lengthy quotes by FLT-bird, but only rarely by TwelveOfTwenty as in, "abolitionists in the South", though never in reference to Confederate "Reasons for Secession" documents.
He and I were talking about the South/Southern States.
In case you've forgotten, the question here is: why did some Southern states declare secession?
No. He did not say "why did SOME Southern states declare secession". He said "the South". The former would have been correct. The latter was not.
But those before Fort Sumter had different reasons, and those focused first & foremost on slavery.
Even to simply say "slavery" is not really correct. They pointed out that it was the Northern states which violated the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution...in effect, they broke the deal. Which they did. There's no question about it. Several also mentioned other things that really pissed them off like the economic causes.....like the fact that when that band of murderous lunatics led by John Brown invaded Virginia in order to try to cause carnage, they were equipped with very expensive Sharps rifles (from which we get the term Sharpshooter). Most could not afford these and they had a bunch of them. Right away people knew these weren't just some half assed ragamuffins. There was money behind them.
It turned out there was indeed money behind them. Several prominent New Englanders had provided money to these domestic terrorists. Several of them came out and admitted it openly.....and those states refused to arrest or prosecute them for it. Try to imagine what the reaction would be if the financiers of a terrorist attack on the US in modern times came out and declared they had supported it in a foreign country and that country refused to turn them over or prosecute them. We'd be ordering up drone strikes the next day. That's what the New England states did (providing safe haven to terrorist financiers). That's how Southerners felt about it. (we can't possibly exist in one country with these people any longer). I find Southerners' reaction to have been completely understandable under those circumstances.
Those reasons have been analyzed in detail and resulted in the accurate chart which you pretend is laughable (because it tells the truth you loathe).
its laughable because you ignore any context which is inconvenient for your arguments.....because you loathe the truth. Yes, those states cited the fact that the Northern states violated the compact by violating the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. That was their legal argument. Frankly its airtight. There's no question the Northern states did in fact violate the constitution.
Of course the part you did not note was that they were offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Hooray! The very thing they were upset about right? Wrong. They turned that offer down. They weren't interested in a "remedy". They were making a legal argument. What they actually wanted was to get out. What they wanted was self determination in order to set their own tariff and trade policy. When they did so in the Confederate Constitution, they set a maximum tariff of 10%. MAXIMUM. That was well below even the Walker Tariff which was the compromise lower tariff the US had in place before Northern special interests TRIPLED the tariff rates.
So, including Alabama's, five states gave us formal reasons for secession and the best you might say is that three of the five include reasons other than slavery. But not one omits slavery and all dwell on it at great length, even if it's not the first issue they address.
Alabama did not give a declaration of causes. The 4 which did all made the sound legal argument that the Northern states had violated the compact. Nobody can accuse them of having broken the deal. It was the Northern states which broke the deal. That was all the "injury" honor required in order to exercise their sovereign right of unilateral secession.
So the conclusion must be that slavery was certainly on the minds of every Democrat Fire Eater secessionist, and indeed, that without slavery (as in 1830) secession could never be sold to a majority of patriotic Southern voters.
False. Slavery was merely the legal pretext for them to do what their economic interest indicated they should do - declare independence and free themselves form Northern commercial tyranny.
Alabama included this "whereas" in its Ordinance of Secession: "Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions..." As you well know, "domestic institutions" is code of "slavery".
Alabama did not issue a declaration of causes.
In fact, Rhett does discuss (and lie about) tariffs & spending,
Nope! Rhett was truthful. You are lying about the tariffs.
and he also discusses slavery at great length. So, in his first specific, Rhett claims: "The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue -- to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures." But all such taxes before secession in 1861 were passed by Southerners under mostly Democrat Presidents like Madison, Jackson, Polk & Buchanan, never by Republicans.
So what? Rhett is talking about the Northern states, not Republicans. You continually try to conflate the two. The fact that Presidents from the Southern states went along with these tariffs lobbied for by Northern special interest groups does not mean they were not economically harmful to the Southern states. They definitely were.
Further, they promoted the interests of all "mines & manufactures", North, South, East & West.
Where were the mines and manufactures primarily located?
Next Rhett further complains: "The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected three-fourths of them are expended at the North." That's a flat-out lie, only possibly true if by "the North" you mean every state north of South Carolina!
No. That's the flat out lie! You're the one telling it.
And then after such non-serious complaints, about half-way through, Rhett gets to the real reason: slavery, and on that one subject he devotes the last half of his argument.
After Rhett lays out irrefutable arguments about how the Southern states have been exploited by the Northern states via taxation and trade policy, he then gets to slavery - which even for him was of secondary importance.
Reasons for Secession S. Carolina Mississippi Georgia Texas Rbt. Rhett A. Stephens AVERAGE OF 6 Historical context 41% 20% 23% 21% 20% 20% 24% Slavery 20% 73% 56% 54% 35% 50% 48% States' Rights 37% 3% 4% 15% 15% 10% 14% Lincoln's election 2% 4% 4% 4% 5% 0% 3% Economic issues** 0 0 15% 0% 25% 20% 10% Military protection 0 0 0 6% 0% 0% 1%
You try to conflate the legal argument - ie that the Northern states had violated the compact with the real reason. Yet in order to do this you must completely ignore the fact that the original 7 seceding states were offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and turned it down.