Which States Referred to Slavery in Their Cause of Secession? | HistoryNet

Which States Referred to Slavery in Their Cause of Secession?

By Mr. History
11/3/2015 • Ask Mr. History

Can you tell me which states named slavery in their Cause of Secession?

—TJH

? ? ?

Dear TVH,

Although they mentioned other causes and sometimes used veiled references to defense of “life and property,” none of the secessionist was shy about making some reference to slavery as a primary cause for their dissolution of ties with a United States government that had, in their eyes, fallen under the domination of the “Black Republicans,” as a careful look through their respective ordinances will reveal.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp

The attitudes of the time can be found in more detail in the rhetoric that accompanied the breaks. At the very onset, on December 20, 1860, South Carolina declared that President-elect Abraham Lincoln’s “opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.”

On January 7, 1861, the ordinance signed in Montgomery that “it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the Slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States.”

On February 2, 1861, Texas declared its decision to be “based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color—a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law.”

On March 9, 1861, Arkansas’s George B. Smoote added a resolution: “Resolved, that the platform on the party known as the Black Republican Party contains unconstitutional dogmas, dangerous in their tendency and highly derogatory to the rights of slave states, and among them the insulting, injurious and untruthful enunciation of the right of the African race of their country to social and political equality with the whites.”

On April 17, 1861 latecomer Virginia, provoked by Lincoln’s raising troops to suppress the already seceded states, declared “Lincoln’s opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery” as it cut ties with Washington. Tennessee was the 11th and last, its population divided on secession (eastern Tennesseans generally opposed it), but not on the slave issue.

Such is the underlying motive behind “States’ Rights” and the “heritage” symbolized then as well as now by the Confederate battle flag—and, for that matter, the national “Stars and Bars.”

Sincerely,

 

Jon Guttman
Research Director
World History
www.historynet.com

More Questions at Ask Mr. History

 

Don’t miss the next Ask Mr. History question! To receive notification whenever any new item is published on HistoryNet, just scroll down the column on the right and sign up for our RSS feed.

23 Responses to Which States Referred to Slavery in Their Cause of Secession?

  1. RGlenCheek says:

    Lol, the phrase slave holding states’ is merely synonymous with ‘Southern States’ and not in and of itself a defense of slavery, but of the interests and rights of this block of states of which slavery was the most signal distinguishing feature from the rest of the country. Virginia and other states did not secede despite their new inferior relationship with the North after Lincolns election, but instead only after Lincoln exercised unconstitutional powers in ordering up new military forces to invade the South, to arrest political opponents and shut down hostile newspapers.

    Your simplistic view of a complex story is the hallmark of an ideological perspective that distorts and inverts actual accurate history.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPOnL-PZeCc

    • Whiskey in the Jar says:

      “Your simplistic view of a complex story is the hallmark of an ideological perspective that distorts and inverts actual accurate history.”

      Unintended irony is my favorite kind . . . .

      • Tostik says:

        Self-serving view of the cause of the the Civil War. It was slavery. Sounds simplistic to me. Here’s a study for you to mess with your simplicity. In James McPherson’s book For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, after reading over 25,000
        letters and 250 diaries from soldiers on both sides, McPherson found
        that only 20% of the Confederate soldiers mentioned slavery at all. Patriotism and Independence were most mentioned. My GGGrandfathers reason was the invasion of the South. He had a large farm, but no slaves.

      • Tostik says:

        You say it was only about slavery? Sounds simplistic to me. Here’s a study for you to mess with your simplifying something complex. In James McPherson’s book “For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War”, after reading over 25,000 letters and 250 diaries from soldiers on both sides, McPherson found that only 20% of the Confederate soldiers mentioned slavery at all. Patriotism and Independence were most mentioned. My GGGrandfather’s reason for fighting was the invasion of the South by the Federal government. He had a large farm, but no slaves.

    • Son, google [ordinance of secession] and [declaration of causes]; pretending that the American Civil War wasn’t about slavery is the most childish and pedestrian of attempts at historical revision, because people at the time– in their own words— were perfectly frank and explicit about the matter. None of the eleven seceding states were the least bit shy about their reasons for doing so, and seven of them specifically reference racial slavery as their primary motivation in their secession ordinances and/or formal declarations of causes; the Texas Declaration Of Secession goes on for five gushing paragraphs about slavery justifying secession.

      • RGlenCheek says:

        If the Civil War was about 3e4nding slavery why did Lincoln offer to protect it by a Constitutional Amendment? Why did several slave states remain in the Union? Why did Lincoln take so long to ban slavery, but only in rebellious states? Why did US Grant have two personal slave servants throughout the whole freaking war? Why did half of the Confederate states only secede after Lincoln called up troops to invade the other states?

        Sure slavery was a catalitic ’cause’ in the secession but it was not the driving cause that precipitated the secession of all those states.
        Dont be a stupid Marxist in your view of history.

      • Google

        Ordinance

        Of

        Secession

        …You ignorant racist buffoon.

      • RGlenCheek says:

        Lol, now I am a racist for disagreeing with your Marxist interpretation of history?

        No, you are the baboon, schmuck

      • You’re a racist for supporting the Confederacy, which was built on racial slavery; you’re a buffoon because googling [ordinance of secession] demonstrates beyond rational argument that the seceding states– in their own words– did so in order to maintain racial slavery.

        Supporting the Confederacy also means you’re also a traitor to the United States of America, so feel free to self-deport just any ol’ time.

      • RGlenCheek says:

        Lol, yuou jump to far too many conclusions, just like the nit wit you apparently are.
        My family is from Indiana and fought for the Union.
        I am not supporting the Confederacy, who I am glad lost the war, but I am simply supporting TRUTH, something that appears to make you break out in hives, lol.
        The causes of the Civil War are manifold and complex. Single cause simpletons like yourself are a disservice to the comprehension of accurate history.

      • Google

        Ordinance

        Of

        Secession

      • RGlenCheek says:

        Why? It proves NOTHING?

      • It proves that slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy. Speaking of which,

        Google

        Cornerstone

        Speech

      • RGlenCheek says:

        No it only proves the opinions of the authors who were sons of the 2% minority slave owning oligarchs. The rest of the South did not fight for slavery that they did not use, in fact many areas of the South rebelled against the Confederacy.

        Read your history, bubba.

      • Google

        Cornerstone

        Speech

      • RGlenCheek says:

        you have only got one note, dude and it proves nada.

        and you have only total silence on Lincolns constitutional amendment to protect slavery, the remaining slave states that never left the union, etrrc.

        You lose, dude.

      • mimilyn says:

        I’m wondering what purpose it serves to Google things and only read those from a narrow minded perspective. I’ve read the ordinances. I’ve also read the declarations of succession. I’ve only seen that four states listed slavery as part of their declaration. This doesn’t mean that slavery was the sole cause of those four states decision to secede. It was almost surely a major factor, but some were very lengthy and pointed to other issues as well. This says nothing about the reasons for the rest of the states choosing to secede.

        One thing that people get confused about, is that the reasons for secession are not the reasons for the war.

        The main motivation for the states to begin seceding, was the perceived threat of radical abolitionists imposing their will onto their home states. The issue at hand was differences over the laws in place, regarding negro slavery. But, the principle behind it, was the federal government and yankee states disregarded the laws of sovereign states. In spite of the nobility behind the idea of abolition, their actions were contrary to the constitution.

        The reason for the war was less complex. Lincoln refused to accept the dissolution of the union. He didn’t send his armies to free slaves, but to reclaim the CSA. He later decided to declare the Emancipation Proclamation to rally more soldiers. A strategic war maneuver. The war ultimately ended slavery, but at a huge price and left many in the south with deep resentment. It spawned much hatred, racism, lynchings, Jim Crow era, KKK, etc. The white supremacist views and oppression of blacks carried on in the entire country for many years after “emancipation”.

      • Olle Gräfstrom says:

        Who is saying it is about ending slavery? The war and secession was *about* slavery, as that was what started it.
        The South seceded on the basis that their precious institution was threatened.

        Georgia : 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.

        Mississippi: 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.

        South Carolina: We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.

        Texas: She [referring to Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery– the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits– a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy…all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color– a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

        Noone cares what the North wanted to do, it is not a part of the matter. You guys seceded with the most common goal of protecting your institution, and Lincoln merely restored order following that.

      • Jordan Collum says:

        Just to answer your questions. First of all, looking at why Lincoln did what he did during the war has nothing to do with Slavery being the cause of the Civil War 1. I think it’s obvious that He created an amendment because he knew the cause of the war to be slavery and if it wasn’t permanently outlawed then it wouldn’t be long before the outbreak of another war. 2. When looking at the border states, some of them did secede when Lincoln issued the E.P. and some of them actually outlawed slavery before the end of the war. 3. Lincoln only outlawed slavery in the South because he used his war powers to do so which limited what he could do. 3. Grant having slaves doesn’t have anything to do with why the South seceded.

      • RGlenCheek says:

        Lol, so Lincoln wanted to invade the South to end slavery, but offered an amendment to prevent said war that would protect the institution of slavery for as long as our Constitution endured?

        You are suffering from a severe case of ‘Cognitive Dissonance’ to put it mildly.

      • Jordan Collum says:

        And you seem to be illiterate because you completely misread what I wrote. He didn’t go to war to end slavery. He created an Amendment to abolish slavery which was the underlying cause of the Civil War. If you don’t fix the cause, then history will repeat itself.

      • Jordan Collum says:

        I get it man you watched the youtube video where the extremely bias conservative disputes the West Point video that argues why slavery is the cause of the Civil War. Look beyond that video to the more educated arguments that are out there.

      • RGlenCheek says:

        Lol, no, scrotum breath, as I said before Lincoln proposed and amendment to the Constitution that would PROTECT SLAVERY, not abolish it, numbnuts.

        You libs are so hysterical, lol.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

, , , ,



Sponsored Content: