On the nature of the Confederacy, the American Civil War, and Slavery

[Tambourine]

Though we were not at war with 'apartheid' , Americans and others will still demonize them as evil. Same with the Southern people of the Confederacy and even those today, such as I, who am pro-Confederate and very proud of our people and their stand in that war. Immediately I am a person of hate, and evil, and intolerance.

My point is man always does it. He demonizes that which he believes or is his enemy. This will be done and has been done at times with Bible believing Christians. Those hateful evangelicals. Those blood lust fundamentals. We are that evil radical sect of intolerant Christianity.

Never changes.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Really? I admit I don't know many Americans, but people here where I live tend to view it accurately as a racist system to oppress the majority population in South Africa, and the Confederate regime as a conglomerate of slavers who wanted to preserve slavery with organized violence.

If you have trouble with people accepting you as a tolerant free-thinker, then maybe don't support racism?
It's not a good look, even in the best of circumstances.


Wait.... aren't you the guy who told everyone they had no right to tell you to distance because they weren't Christian (or Christian enough in your eyes to qualify as a proper Christian)?

Don't misunderstand. I have no 'trouble with people accepting' me. My point was it is common for man to demonize his enemies.

You're going to have to come up with a quote I said for me to answer that question. Or at least a post number. I did and do support Christians meeting together for worship despite the 'shelter in place' laws.

Concerning your statement of the Confederacy, I would say you should do some of your own study about that war. I don't know where you are from, but I know even most Americans don't know the history of that war. I would be glad to discuss, or argue with you concerning it, but not in this topic thread as it would be derailing it. Start a new thread about it and I assure you I will participate.

Pleasure meeting you.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Just a short note on my background, to place my statements into proper context: I am not American. I am from Austria, where I first studied philosophy, then trained to be a teacher of English and History in Austrian schools. My education in history naturally focused on European history, although the topic of America did come up, obviously, as the world's most influential military power today, so we did go into the topic of American history. Most of my knowledge of American history, however, I have acquired as a hobbyist, using both online and offline sources, in both German and English (which I am able to read and write fluently). I used to be very fond of military history in younger years, so naturally I did read up on the subject of the American Civil War and I initially believed that the main factors of Southern secession laid in States rights and the question of trade tariffs, not slavery. This was before I read up on literature that actually referred to original period sources.

As of now, after studying the time period a little more closely, I've come to the conclusion that, regardless of other factors that may have plaid into their decision to secede, the question of slavery, and its preservation as a cultural insitution, remained central Southern self image, and Southern politics not only during the Civil War, but also during the decades leading up to it.

 

[Tambourine]

To illustrate and support my argument, I have copied the Declaration of the Causes of Secession by the State of Georgia, from this website. A different website seems to corrobate its accuracy.

Due to software limitations, I have to split this document into several parts. Here is part one:

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. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that 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. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.

Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of 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.

 

[Tambourine]

Part two:

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. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted under the old confederation and by the assent of Virginia, who owned and ceded the country, and therefore this case must stand on its own special circumstances. The Government of the United States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina, by treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions the policy of the Government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves). All were equally protected by public authority in their persons and property until the inhabitants became sufficiently numerous and otherwise capable of bearing the burdens and performing the duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union upon equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution they might adopt for themselves.

Under this equally just and beneficent policy law and order, stability and progress, peace and prosperity marked every step of the progress of these new communities until they entered as great and prosperous commonwealths into the sisterhood of American States. In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

 

[Tambourine]

The third and final part of Georgia's Declaration of the Causes of Secession:

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.

The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.

A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility.

The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.

The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.

These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.

These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861

 

[Tambourine]

There are more of these documents to be found at the website I got it from:
Mississippi
South Carolina
Texas

What you will find upon their perusal is that, among all the causes for secession, slavery is not only to be found in all of these documents, but is very frequently presented as the most important, central cause of secession among these states.


Here is the Secession Ordinance passed by the state of Virginia. Note their phrasing, "the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States". The leaders of the Confederated States were not playing coy about their motivations, and they were not ashamed of talking about slavery.

THE SECESSION ORDINANCE.
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND TO RESUME ALL THE RIGHTS AND POWERS GRANTED UNDER SAID CONSTITUTION.

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain that the ordinance adopted by the people of this State in Convention, on the twenty-fifth day of June, eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying or adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the Union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State. And they do further declare that the said Constitution of the United States of America is no longer binding on any of the citizens of this State.

This ordinance shall take effect and be an act of this day when ratified by a majority of the votes of the people of this State, cast at a poll to be taken thereon on the fourth Thursday in May next, in pursuance of a schedule to be hereafter enacted.

Done in Convention, in the city of Richmond, on the 17th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and in the eighty-fifth year of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

JNO. L. EUBANK, Secretary of Convention

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

@Tambourine

Yes, slavery is specifically mentioned by several Southern states in their declaration of secession as the main cause for their secession. But, that is an incomplete story concerning slavery as the cause. When the Southern state says slavery is the cause, he is not saying we are seceding because the white man must enslave the black man. Slavery fueled the economy of the lower Southern states. To remove slavery was to destroy the economy and destroy the Southern people, making them slaves to the industrial North. And by 1860 there was only talk of immediate freedom to the slaves. Not gradual freedom and some recompense of loss given to the Southern slave owner.

And slavery is not the only reason given in these states declaration of secession.

And, it is only the lower coastal states that would first secede and have slavery as a reason for their secession. You cited Virginia as a last example. Virginia did not secede along with the lower Southern states. In fact the only states that had seceded prior to the firing on Fort Sumter were the lower coastal states.

The only reason the upper states seceded was due to Lincoln's call to the states to produce 75,000 men to go to war against the lower coastal states. These states said they would not and that Lincoln had gone to far. So they seceded. The phrase 'the oppression of the slaveholding states' in the Virginia declaration speaks to that oppression.

Plus, you must understand that slavery was protected by the Constitution. It wasn't as though the South was asking for something illegally. It was their right to own and have slaves and work the plantations. The constant attacks by the lunatic abolitionist's were attacks against that Constitutional right.

There is much, much more to say concerning this but this is enough to start.

Good-Ole-Rebe;

 

[ManSinha]

I once had the opportunity a couple decades ago to to live in the home of a retired professor of American history and his wife. They were empty nesters and I was a young student. I used to have several discussions with the gentleman. As regards the American Civil war; he said one of the main reasons (undocumented) was for the North to curb the economic power of the South and do so by striking at the one thing that was responsible for their economic success i.e. the use of slaves in their plantations. He did admit the altruism of Lincoln but that statement has stayed with me.

 

[Tambourine]

How was slavery protected by the Constitution? I looked at this online version and found nothing pertaining to slavery outside the 13rd Amendment, which post-dates the American Civil War obviously.

 

[Tambourine]

I once had the opportunity a couple decades ago to to live in the home of a retired professor of American history and his wife. They were empty nesters and I was a young student. I used to have several discussions with the gentleman. As regards the American Civil war; he said one of the main reasons (undocumented) was for the North to curb the economic power of the South and do so by striking at the one thing that was responsible for their economic success i.e. the use of slaves in their plantations. He did admit the altruism of Lincoln but that statement has stayed with me.

I admit I find it hard to ascribe neferious motivations to the side that wants to free people from bondage, but that may be just my bias talking.

 

[Secret Chief]

Plus, you must understand that slavery was protected by the Constitution. It wasn't as though the South was asking for something illegally. It was their right to own and have slaves and work the plantations. The constant attacks by the lunatic abolitionist's were attacks against that Constitutional right.

It may have been legal, but presumably the fundamental objection is one of ethics?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

How was slavery protected by the Constitution? I looked at this online version and found nothing pertaining to slavery outside the 13rd Amendment, which post-dates the American Civil War obviously.

Article IV Section 2. Known as the fugitive slave law.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[ManSinha]

I admit I find it hard to ascribe neferious motivations to the side that wants to free people from bondage, but that may be just my bias talking.

I never said it was the only reason and history is often written by the victors - I have lived in the American South and have socialized with people who to this day are angry at the "North" for winning the war (they were not even around at the time of the event) - so yes feelings can run high - by the way the gentleman I spoke about lived in CT and was an out and out North Easterner - born in NY and moved to CT at age 18 and lived there into his 70's at the time I knew him. But the slavery issue did provide an excellent "moral" platform to the North.

 

[Left Coast]

Article IV Section 2. Known as the fugitive slave law.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Rebel, do you believe slavery is morally wrong?

 

[Tambourine]

@Good-Ole-Rebel
So, are are in agreement then that the preservation of slavery was the primary motivation for the Confederacy to go to war?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

@Good-Ole-Rebel
So, are are in agreement then that the preservation of slavery was the primary motivation for the Confederacy to go to war?

No we are not. The Confederacy did not decide to go to war. War was brought on the Confederacy. The Confederacy seceded...peacefully. The Confederacy sought to leave the Union. The North was motivated to go to war to bring the Southern States back into the Union.

Why should the Confederacy secede to preserve slavery? Slavery was already protected by the Constitution. Something you refuse now to acknowledge though I showed you.

The Supreme Court decision concerning Dred Scott had been decided in1857 by the Supreme Court, who decides Constitutional cases. It did away with the divisional line of the Missouri Compromise. It, the Supreme Court, said Sourthernors could take their slaves any where in the U.S. they wanted including the Western Territories. Look it up.

Once Lincoln was elected and the Southern states started seceding, Lincoln promised the South that he would approve a bill being run through Congress that protected slavery in the South forever, if they just would not secede. It would have been the original 13th amendment. Look it up.

So, why in the world should the South be motivated to preserve slavery when it was extremely protected in the Union? Will you answer that or ignore it?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Tambourine]

No we are not. The Confederacy did not decide to go to war. War was brought on the Confederacy. The Confederacy seceded...peacefully. The Confederacy sought to leave the Union. The North was motivated to go to war to bring the Southern States back into the Union.

If I remember correctly, it was Confederate artillery that started shelling Fort Sumter, not the other way around. So far, you haven't presented any sources that would confirm the opposite.

So, why in the world should the South be motivated to preserve slavery when it was extremely protected in the Union? Will you answer that or ignore it?

Good-Ole-Rebel

The Southern state governments explained this rather extensively in their Declarations of Secession which I linked to in the beginning of this thread. Did you not read them?

 

[Shad]

Just a short note on my background, to place my statements into proper context: I am not American. I am from Austria, where I first studied philosophy, then trained to be a teacher of English and History in Austrian schools. My education in history naturally focused on European history, although the topic of America did come up, obviously, as the world's most influential military power today, so we did go into the topic of American history. Most of my knowledge of American history, however, I have acquired as a hobbyist, using both online and offline sources, in both German and English (which I am able to read and write fluently). I used to be very fond of military history in younger years, so naturally I did read up on the subject of the American Civil War and I initially believed that the main factors of Southern secession laid in States rights and the question of trade tariffs, not slavery. This was before I read up on literature that actually referred to original period sources.

As of now, after studying the time period a little more closely, I've come to the conclusion that, regardless of other factors that may have plaid into their decision to secede, the question of slavery, and its preservation as a cultural insitution, remained central Southern self image, and Southern politics not only during the Civil War, but also during the decades leading up to it.

Read the secession letters from the States if you have not yet.

 

[Shad]

If I remember correctly, it was Confederate artillery that started shelling Fort Sumter, not the other way around. So far, you haven't presented any sources that would confirm the opposite.

The issue is not who fired first but if secession was valid thus who owned the fort. The Fort was Federal property granted to the Fed by SC years ago. The Fed could not negotiate with SC as that would require recognition of secession as valid as SC declared itself a nation-state followed by entry as a State of the CSA. SC negotiated from that position.Likewise the Feds maintained that SC was a State in rebellion with no legitimacy. Any negotiations with the Fed required acknowledgement of SC by SC itself as a State of the Union.

If secession is valid Sumter is under occupation by the Feds as a foreign power. If so the Fed is taking aggressive action (as in legal position) which is an act of war regardless of any documented declaration. That becomes a Casus Belli for SC and the CSA to take action to remove an foreign power's occupation force as self-defense. The Union started the war. CSA only fired the opening shots of an existing war. The CSA would have casus belli for taking such actions.

If secession is not valid attacking US personnel and damaging Fed property is a crime. Leaders of the CSA are in sedition (which was still a law at the time) thus an action against the Union was an act of open rebellion.

The Constitution contains nothing about secession at the time

A lot of legal BS is merely used to create the justification in the public eye for what leaders already wanted to do. It's propaganda for the masses.

I am not American either.

* I would add that often history of the war is overwhelmed by the issue of slavery. In the present I think it is safe to say a majority of the global population is morally against it. In the 18/19th centuries abolitionists were a small minority. The majority didn't care. Most governments had legal forms of it as a majority. Most religion/sects sanctioned it for various reason. Once you remove slavery from the forefront it becomes very gray with no side having the clear moral high-ground thus be "identified" as the good side.

If you haven't yet look up the post-war US. There were radical civil rights abuses against former CSA citizens by the Union. Convictions and punishment without due process. No public representation in office. Political party suppression. Oaths of loyalty to the Union as a requirement to even run for office. Government officials answerable to the North and Congress not the citizens they represent.

A lot of the cultural perception in the South regarding the North and War can have nothing to do with racial issues directly. It requires no racist views of the person involved.

 

[Tambourine]

Read the secession letters from the States if you have not yet.

I have, which is why I fielded them in support of my argument.

EDIT: Just to clear up any possible confusion, my argument is that the Confederacy was a conglomerate of slave holding states that fought to preserve slavery as an economic and cultural institution. All evidence I have seen so far clearly supports that.

 

[Tambourine]

The issue is not who fired first but if secession was valid thus who owned the fort. The Fort was Federal property granted to the Fed by SC years ago. The Fed could not negotiate with SC as that would require recognition of secession as valid as SC declared itself a nation-state followed by entry as a State of the CSA. SC negotiated from that position.Likewise the Feds maintained that SC was a State in rebellion with no legitimacy. Any negotiations with the Fed required acknowledgement of SC by SC itself as a State of the Union.

If secession is valid Sumter is under occupation by the Feds as a foreign power. If so the Fed is taking aggressive action (as in legal position) which is an act of war regardless of any documented declaration. That becomes a Casus Belli for SC and the CSA to take action to remove an foreign power's occupation force as self-defense. The Union started the war. CSA only fired the opening shots of an existing war. The CSA would have casus belli for taking such actions.

The Southern armies fired shots at the Fort, so they made a decision to go to war over the question.

The fact that you are debating the validity of a 'casus belli' already implies that they went to war, which was my entire point.
For the purpose of this discussion, I don't really care about the question of how valid their case was, or who was 'in the right' here, and I'm not interested in debating the morality of slavery, either.