Did the Confederacy really secede over "states rights"?

[heavenlyboy34]

No We in our lifetime.
But there was time between the secession from the crown, and the time it took to put in the articles of confederation where there was a voluntary union.

It wasn't exactly a "voluntary union", IMO. That claim is what I call "winner's history". Loyalists during the revolution were robbed of property and land as well as subject to tar and feathering/general physical attacks. Thus, there were loads of people who either left the country to Canada or considered themselves British under American occupation. Since then, every few generations the masses have been re-enslaved to Leviathan in one way or another.

[robert68]

Which legislatures didn't ratify the Constitution?

None ratified it:

...
Also, by bypassing debate in the state legislatures, the Constitution avoided disabling amendments that states, jealous of yielding authority to a national government, would likely have attached.
...
http://www.archives.gov/education/le...ification.html

The supporters made up new rules:

Article VII
The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

[torchbearer]

It wasn't exactly a "voluntary union", IMO. That claim is what I call "winner's history". Loyalists during the revolution were robbed of property and land as well as subject to tar and feathering/general physical attacks. Thus, there were loads of people who either left the country to Canada or considered themselves British under American occupation. Since then, every few generations the masses have been re-enslaved to Leviathan in one way or another.

Well, I guess the colonist could have forgone the use of armed revolution and waiting another 1000 years of educating people and maybe they would have just ignored the crown in a full fledged agorist movement. But we wouldn't be having such a discussion right now. I'd be having tea instead.

[euphemia]

You're counting Missouri and Maryland as confederate states? Huh? (Hint. They weren't).

Sorry, the Mason-Dixon Line ran north of Maryland.

We lost a lot of rights, thanks to Northern liberalism. Slavery was coming to a natural end, for th emost part, when the Northern liberals insisted on a federal edict that it end immediately.

[Pericles]

None ratified it:


The supporters made up new rules:

So the AoC Congress just stopped meeting on its own?

[Vanguard101]

Both sides were wrong on basically everything. /Discussion

[The Gold Standard]

I wasn't there, so I don't know why they did it. I just know Lincoln had no legal right to invade the southern states. Both governments were equally despicable, in a shocking turn of events.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, I guess the colonist could have forgone the use of armed revolution and waiting another 1000 years of educating people and maybe they would have just ignored the crown in a full fledged agorist movement. But we wouldn't be having such a discussion right now. I'd be having tea instead.

'twould certainly have been a better fate for the colonists and the rest of humanity. British subjugation of colonies ain't got nothing on the American style.

[The Rebel Poet]

Except the Union wasn't "down there" until the South first went "up there." Lee invaded the North before the North invaded the South.

What?? I've never heard that. Can you provide evidence for this bizarre claim?

[GunnyFreedom]

What?? I've never heard that. Can you provide evidence for this bizarre claim?

It's not. Lincoln attacked SC over the bombing of Ft Sumter, in SC. Lee wasn't even involved at that point.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[GunnyFreedom]

You appear to have evidence of 2 states seceding on account of slavery, and then painting all 11 states with the rationale you drew from those two. As I said up front, some states seceded over slavery, some states seceded for other reasons. Trying to paint all 11 states with the resolution of secession from JUST Mississippi, is not only a logical fallacy, it is also collectivism. North Carolina and Tennessee, for example, did not secede over slavery. Mississippi and South Carolina, however, did secede over slavery. Your attempts to bind all 11 states into a monolithic cause are built on false premises and illogical reasoning.

[FloralScent]

FreedomFanatic had phrased his question so as to separate the issue of secession from the issue of the response to that secession (the war). That's something that some contingent of the liberty movement (I don't know whether it's large or small) will not allow to occur. You can see it in your own response; you are incapable of answering FreedomFanatic's question without dragging in the Federal government's response to it. That contingent of the liberty movement, seems incapable of condemning the Slave-holding States (a label I use because that is how they described themselves) for the rationale of their desire to secede ... SLAVERY.

If you were to be asked the same question with respect to why the American colonists seceded from England, would you say the same thing (that you didn't know because you weren't there) - or would you refer to the Declaration of Independence and the minutes of meetings and sessions that led to it? The seceding "slave-holding" states left the same kind of audit trail of their rationale for secession. As jmdrake has pointed out it's in their declarations of causes of secession. It's also in the minutes of their secession conventions (I've been through those - it's a mind-numbing experience). And in those documents the tariff, if it's mentioned at all, is mentioned about one hundredth as much as is the issue of the slave-holding states' "peculiar institution".

But I keep digging further to see if I can see what I'm missing. I spent part of the winter break from work going through the minutes of Mississippi's secession conventon of 1851 (abou a decade earlier than the actual secession). There was another secession convention in 1849 that I haven't dug through yet; but the minutes of November 1851 were bureaucratically mind-numbing enough. In Mississippi's resolutions was the conclusion that secession was not authorized by the Constitution:

By the same token, they did not dismiss that there were reasons that would warrant such civil revolution. And they were quite succinct in listing those reasons in the very next resolution:

You can see that the tariff is not mentioned, while slavery is front and center. And in the entirety of the minutes of that 1851 Convention, you will not find a single mention of the tariff, despite the fact that the tariff in 1851 was far more burdensome than the tariff at the time of actual secession.

So the best I can figure out is that the Confederate apologists (who seem to be led by Tom Woods) are proposing that there was some great conspiracy to replace the actual minutes of these secession conventions (which showed the tariff as the cuase of secession) with revised minutes (which showed slavery as the causes of secession).


Secession of the individual from the State is a blessed event. Secession of one collective from another collective is merely an excuse for the consolidation of political power in hands closer to home where they are more likely to take a more personal interest in those individuals asserting their autonomy from that collective. Someone on this board once said that puts those with political leadership within closer rifle range. It also puts each individual within closer rifle range of even more rifles that the local collective has available to it (ten rifles enforcing your conformity as apposed to one rifle enforcing your non-conformity).

West Virginia was admitted to the Union in 1863 as a slave state; Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were allowed to remain in the Union as slave states during the entire course of the war. You no-nothings sure like to cherry pick your outrage.

[Southron]

Does it really matter why the South seceded? Or did it need your permission?

Perhaps all secession movements in the world should be vetted by self-righteous Yankees.

Sarcasm aside, we get bogged down too much on the causes of secession when secession itself should be the primary topic.

The war was, after all, to prevent Southern secession or Southern independence. This cant be denied.

Should states be prevented from leaving the Union by invasion if need be?

[Christian Liberty]

Does it really matter why the South seceded? Or did it need your permission?

Perhaps all secession movements in the world should be vetted by self-righteous Yankees.

Sarcasm aside, we get bogged down too much on the causes of secession when secession itself should be the primary topic.

The war was, after all, to prevent Southern secession or Southern independence. This cant be denied.

Should states be prevented from leaving the Union by invasion if need be?

I thought I was clear about this. I believe the South should have been left alone and that for Lincoln to go to war to stop them was a scummy, murderous move.

But, the southern states, or at least the first seven, seceded because they wanted to keep slaves Not to prevent federal overreach. Both sides were awful.

[Southron]

I thought I was clear about this. I believe the South should have been left alone and that for Lincoln to go to war to stop them was a scummy, murderous move.

But, the southern states, or at least the first seven, seceded because they wanted to keep slaves Not to prevent federal overreach. Both sides were awful.

You make too much of the official declarations of secession. I wouldnt trust them as to the opinion of the delegates that voted for secession any more than I trust Jefferson's declaration that all men are created equal as the galvanizing force behind the revolution.

But my original point is that the underlying motivations behind secession are of much less importance than the idea of secession itself.

It is a shame that secession seems forever tied to slavery and you cant have have an honest discussion about it without it being brought up.

[otherone]

But, the southern states, or at least the first seven, seceded because they wanted to keep slaves Not to prevent federal overreach. Both sides were awful.

really? Washington wanted to take away their slaves?

[Tywysog Cymru]

really? Washington wanted to take away their slaves?

A Republican was elected President and the South was worried.

[Christian Liberty]

You make too much of the official declarations of secession. I wouldnt trust them as to the opinion of the delegates that voted for secession any more than I trust Jefferson's declaration that all men are created equal as the galvanizing force behind the revolution.

OK, so what data do we have that would go against the official declarations?

But my original point is that the underlying motivations behind secession are of much less importance than the idea of secession itself.

It is a shame that secession seems forever tied to slavery and you cant have have an honest discussion about it without it being brought up.

I'm with you. Its a shame. But the thing is, I'm on your side with regards to all of that. I'm all for secession as a principle, regardless of why the Confederates did it.

[euphemia]

So, what's your point? Do you think slavery was going to remain a permanent institution? Do you think federal law was the best way to go about it? The Industrial Revolution was not far away, and I think the industrialization of the south would have kept the agrarian economy while still providing jobs for those displaced by slavery. But no, the North had to completely destroy the South, and that made more federal nonsense necessary in the form of Reconstruction. If there had been a more natural transition as independent people gained property and income, there might not be the racial tension today blamed on slavery.

[Christian Liberty]

So, what's your point? Do you think slavery was going to remain a permanent institution? Do you think federal law was the best way to go about it? The Industrial Revolution was not far away, and I think the industrialization of the south would have kept the agrarian economy while still providing jobs for those displaced by slavery. But no, the North had to completely destroy the South, and that made more federal nonsense necessary in the form of Reconstruction. If there had been a more natural transition as independent people gained property and income, there might not be the racial tension today blamed on slavery.

I am convinced that there are only a handful of people on planet Earth that actually know how to read English. When even people here can't actually read what I'm writing...

I agree with everything you wrote there. But, none of that proves that the south was seceding to defend "states rights" and limited government. That is my point.

[otherone]

But, none of that proves that the south was seceding to defend "states rights" and limited government. That is my point.

Who the hell would secede for the purpose of demonstrating that you can?

[euphemia]

But you make it sound like everyone was a slave monger. Not everyone was. I've done the research on my ancestors going back to when they first came to the New World. One side of the family did not farm, and the other side of the family farmed, but since the first native-born generation they were too poor to own much of anything--especially slaves. There were other businesses around. The people did not necessarily want slavery. It would have been the wealthy landowners who had access to, um, ruling class lawmakers. Poor day laborers or dirt farmers did not have that kind of access.

[The Gold Standard]

Does it matter why the southern states seceded? They still should have not been invaded. Yes the disgusting Confederate government wanted to keep slavery. Did hundreds of thousands of Americans have to die because of it? Or is someone suggesting that condemning Lincoln means you support slavery? So does supporting Lincoln mean you support mass murder? Both of those governments, along with every other that has ever existed, are a disgrace to human history.

[euphemia]

Exactly.

And now we have labor unions and child labor laws because the northern industrialists abused their workers. Do we need to fight a war about that?

[Southron]

nm

[Southron]

You appear to have evidence of 2 states seceding on account of slavery, and then painting all 11 states with the rationale you drew from those two. As I said up front, some states seceded over slavery, some states seceded for other reasons. Trying to paint all 11 states with the resolution of secession from JUST Mississippi, is not only a logical fallacy, it is also collectivism. North Carolina and Tennessee, for example, did not secede over slavery. Mississippi and South Carolina, however, did secede over slavery. Your attempts to bind all 11 states into a monolithic cause are built on false premises and illogical reasoning.

IIRC, South Carolina was the only southern state where a majority of whites were slaveholders. North Carolina on the other hand had heavy unionist sentiment until Lincoln required we raise troops.

[Christian Liberty]

But you make it sound like everyone was a slave monger. Not everyone was. I've done the research on my ancestors going back to when they first came to the New World. One side of the family did not farm, and the other side of the family farmed, but since the first native-born generation they were too poor to own much of anything--especially slaves. There were other businesses around. The people did not necessarily want slavery. It would have been the wealthy landowners who had access to, um, ruling class lawmakers. Poor day laborers or dirt farmers did not have that kind of access.

From what I understand of the history (which may be wrong) the poorer white people who didn't own slaves nonetheless supported slavery as an economic system for the most part. Abolitionism was a very rare position to hold in the north, and I suspect even rarer in the south. Not sure what "slave-monger" means exactly.

I posted this thread to ask about some stuff I encountered in study. I wasn't trying to defend the north at all, or demonize the south.

[Occam's Banana]

Who the hell would secede for the purpose of demonstrating that you can?

*me: raises hand* Ooh! Ooh! I would! I would!

[otherone]

*me: raises hand* Ooh! Ooh! I would! I would!

SIGH.
I guess there's one in every...bunch?