I wish it was true that the Confederacy had seceded over "states rights" and not over slavery. I can't stand Lincoln, pretty much any of his policies, his idea that states could be forced to stay in the Union, and the expanded Federal government that came about as a result.
Rothbard once said that one of the two wars in American history was "the war for southern independence."
After looking at the real facts, I believe he is wrong. The Civil War was a war of evil against evil, like almost every other war.
Now, I do not deny that the South defended itself from invasion, that they had the constitutional right to do so (though THEY, interestingly enough, didn't really think they did as such) and that the North was wrong to invade the south. But I also do not, cannot; deny that the south seceded to protect slavery as an institution.
South Carolina's declaration of secession:
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/south...eclaration.asp
Even though they do mention "states rights" at the beginning, they later make it clear that A: They were specifically talking about states rights regarding slavery and B: Their belief was entirely one sided. They didn't support the States Rights of the northern states:
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
Mississippi's declaration is the same:
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/missi...eclaration.asp
Starts with this:
I haven't read all of them that. I read a few in my college US history class, and I looked up a few other random ones on my own just to make sure they weren't cherry picking the data.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.
The only one that I saw that didn't specifically mention slavery was Missouri which, oddly enough, also didn't actually secede.
I know Rothbard was both brilliant and a revisionist on this issue. I am curious how he dealt with these documents, as well as anyone else who still thinks the South seceded because of "states rights." Because, much as I want to support secession on principle (And I do), I don't see the evidence.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us