The South was Wrong: An Account of Confederate Motivations

[Rogue 9]

This is a post I wrote to another board this evening, as part of my ongoing efforts against neo-Confederate apologism. Unlike most of my debates on the matter, this one was aimed at a person that I otherwise respect and know is capable of thorough, rational thought; I was genuinely surprised to find that he was sympathetic to the Slave Power. As a result, I was much more thorough in outlining my argument than I usually am, and structured it to persuade him, rather than my usual objective in this issue of making my opponent look like a fool for the benefit of third parties. I thought it may bear discussion, since unlike my previous thread on the subject, this post goes deeply into the motivations of the Slave Power, rather than touching on the subject and then launching into legality. Note: I refer to the Confederate States as the "Slave Power" because that was the name given to it, and before it the political power of Southern slaveholders, by the abolitionist movement, and I will continue to refer to it as such until I no longer hear the American Civil War referred to as the "War of Northern Aggression."

Names and identifying links have been removed to protect the guilty. I refer to heresy in the post because the person it's aimed at is a Christian and I was exploiting that when the Texas declaration made it available. All content following this paragraph is copied from the post I made.

This post stems from [subject]'s recent blog entry, [redacted]. I am not here to argue about Abraham Lincoln's behavior in office; my objection stems from the implicit and explicit positions taken in some of the comments following the original post, to wit, that not only was Lincoln imperfect, but the Confederate States, hereinafter referred to as the Slave Power, its far more accurate nom de guerre of the period, were in the right to behave as they did.

Nothing could be further from the historical truth. Having had this discussion before, I know that this is the point where Confederate apologists will start accusing me of being brainwashed by the history of the victors, so let me squelch that now: My argument is based solely on primary-source documents of the Civil War, not historical accounts written after the fact.

To specify, my argument is this: That the Slave Power had absolutely no interest in states' rights as a principle, but rather used it as a fig leaf to cover their true interest, the perpetuation of chattel slavery. That the Union was not at war to end slavery affects this not at all; the political tides of the Union were moving in such a way that the end of slavery was inevitable, and this is primarily why the states of the Slave Power seceded.

To prove this assertion, I shall quote from certain documents produced by some of the Confederate states, the appropriately named Declarations of the Causes of Secession. I will start with Mississippi. The remainder of the documents may be found at the links I provide, so that all necessary context is available.

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

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 remainder of the document lists specific grievances, most of which are directly related to slavery. None of them have anything to do with state sovereignty except insofar as the issue affects slavery, and in fact, rails against states' rights in one case where it is inconvenient to slavery, to wit:

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

Yet according to popular Confederate doctrine, nullification is a right of the states. I suppose it only counts when it's used in furtherance of slavery.

The rest of the whole damning document may be read at the reference link at the top of the first quote box. Now on to the Declaration of Causes for the state of Georgia, where we get our first glimpse of Lincoln's role in the secessionists' motives. The Georgia legislature was apparently fond of giant walls-o'-text with no paragraphs, making it harder to extract discrete quotes since the document is poorly organized, but the link is provided and I will extract the relevant parts as best I can.

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.

Well, they certainly got right to the point. You'll find that that's a theme in these documents. Now, I promised Lincoln's role, and now I give it to you. Keep in mind that this was published before Lincoln's inauguration, during the end of the Buchanan administration.

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.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't take their rantings about waste and corruption completely at face value, since it serves their purposes to trash the Republican Party at this juncture, but note that even with all that, their primary complaint is that Lincoln and the Republicans oppose slavery. The rest of the document is, as I said, a one-paragraph wall of text, so I will not quote the remainder, but anyone who cares to read it will find that the complaints continue in the vain of railing about restrictions against slavery.

Now for Texas. There are several interesting things to be found in this one. Unique among the states that declared their causes, they do not jump straight into slavery and list some other complaints, but it is clear that slavery is the driving force.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She 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.

The section in blue highlights a direct admission by Texas that it surrendered its separate national character, something commonly disputed by neo-Confederates. This issue did not specifically come up in the LiveJournal comments that sparked this thread, but I thought I might as well head it off at the pass as long as I was already quoting this document. As before, the red highlights references to slavery as a complaint. Moving on.

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

I quote this paragraph mainly to point out that it is a bald-faced lie, as the territories were under Federal administration, not any sort of joint administration by the state governments. Here's an interesting tidbit, which has little to do with slavery, but does highlight just how little the Confederates respected the republican form of government, despite taking on it's trappings:

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress,

This is a complaint? That's kind of what the majority does in a republic; if you want to get your way all the time, form a dictatorship. Moving on, at the end of the document the Texan legislature was kind enough to explicitly outline their views for posterity, to wit:

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

Ouch. That one's got to sting. Particularly as a number of the "African race," as they so delicately put it, did in fact fight and die in the American Revolution to establish this country, which in my book would give them considerable agency in its establishment, if generational ties to the Revolutionaries actually mattered, which they don't. And I daresay they went straight through slavery and into heresy at the end there.

And now, last but hardly least, we come to South Carolina, the state that, as usual, started all the trouble. They didn't get straight to the point at all, engaging in a long and largely inaccurate history lesson before getting down to business in their Declaration. But when they did get to the point, oh boy did they get to it.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

All. About. Slavery.

I think we've heard enough, but there's one last thing on the founding subject, and unlike the Declarations, I shall quote it in full. That is a speech by Alexander Stephens, member of Georgia's secession convention (where he opposed secession) and Vice President of the Slave Power. The speech is commonly known as the Cornerstone Address.

March 21, 1861
We are in the midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history. The last ninety days will mark one of the most memorable eras in the history of modern civilization.

... we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world-seven States have, within the last three months, thrown off an old Government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood. This new Constitution, or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited.

In reference to it, I make this first general remark: It amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and privileges. All the great principles of Magna Chartal are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers, under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old Constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old Constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated.... So, taking the whole new Constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment, that it is decidedly better than the old. [Applause.] Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged in ....

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man.... I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle-a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are, and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not therefore look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first Government ever instituted upon principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many Governments have been founded upon the principles of certain classes; but the classes thus enslaved, were of the same race, and in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. The negro by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, [note: A reference to Genesis, 9:20-27, which was used as a justification for slavery] is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite-then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is the best, not only for the superior but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances or to question them. For His own purposes He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another in glory."

The great objects of humanity are best attained, when conformed to his laws and degrees, in the formation of Governments as well as in all things else. Our Confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief stone of the corner" in our new edifice.

So, we continue to establish that the foundation of the Slave Power was in fact slavery; the name attached to it by the abolitionists was not idle political trash talk. Not only that, but apparently I'm insane to believe that the color of a person's skin does not make him inherently superior or inferior. Also, note: More heresy.

And just to put the final nail in the coffin, we go to the Confederate Constitution, of which Stephens was speaking in the above address.

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Oh, and just for fun, from the constitution's preamble:

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity -- invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God-- do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.

"Permanent federal government." So they weren't any happier about secession from the Slave Power than the Union was about secession from itself. Which was amply demonstrated by Confederate treatment of the Unionists of eastern Tennessee, who wished to rejoin the Union; namely, eastern Tennessee was put down and occupied by military force, and pro-Union inhabitants conscripted into the Confederate armies, but that's peripheral to the point.

Which brings me around to the other part of my assertion; not only did I claim that slavery was a primary motivator, but that the Slave Power did not value states' rights. I touched on this slightly above in some of the other quotes, but the one thing that most lays this to rest is the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This law effectively removed the northern states' rights to regulate the enforcement of the law within their own borders, superceding and repealing at the federal level the personal liberty laws of the free states, which did such terrible things as requiring that those seeking fugitive slaves produce evidence that their captives were fugitives, and affording those accused of being fugitives from slavery the right to a jury trial. The Fugitive Slave Act, pushed by slave state delegations to Congress, ran roughshod over the rights of the free states because those rights were inconvenient to slavery. If states' rights were such a near and dear principle as is often claimed in the modern day, this would never have happened. The full text for the Act.

I believe I have thoroughly established evidence for my assertion. Since there are apparently some here inclined to dispute it, I await their replies.

[Akhlut]

Thank you so much for this. That website will make it a lot easier to debate Slave Power apologists, now. Also, thank you for the idea to refer to them solely as the Slave Power.

[Thanas]

Spammy one liners dealt with.

[Rogue 9]

Out of curiosity, where were they split to? I should like to see what people have to say, even if it's not worthy of remaining in this forum.

Anyway, since it came up in the debate ensuing from the above essay, I present the ultimate counter to the claim that the 9th and 10th Amendments permit secession. It's amusing that the person who posted that answer when I asked did so with a flippant "10th Amendment. Next?" Anyway, on to the meat of the post:

To William Cabell Rives

Montpr, March 12, 1833

Dear Sir,

I have recd your very kind letter of the 6th, from Washington, and by the same mail a copy of your late Speech in the Senate, for which I tender my thanks. I have found as I expected, that it takes a very able and enlightening view of its subject. I wish it may have the effect of reclaiming to the doctrine & language held by all from the birth of the Constitution, & till very lately by themselves, those who now Contend that the States have never parted with an Atom of their sovereignty, and consequently that the Constitutional band which holds them together, is a mere league or partnership, without any of the characteristics of sovereignty or nationality.

It seems strange that it should be necessary to disprove this novel and nullifying doctrine, and stranger still that those who deny it should be denounced as Innovators, heretics & Apostates. Our political system is admitted to be a new Creation — a real nondescript. Its character therefore must be sought within itself, not in precedents, because there are none, not in writers whose comments are guided by precedents. Who can tell at present how Vattel and others of that class, would have qualified (in the Gallic sense of the term) a Compound & peculiar system with such an example of it as ours before them.

What can be more preposterous than to say that the States as united, are in no respect or degree, a Nation, which implies sovereignty, altho' acknowledged to be such by all other Nations & Sovereigns, and maintaining with them, all the in ternational relations, of war & peace, treaties, commerce, &c, and, on the other hand and at the same time, to say that the States separately are compleatly nations & sovereigns, although they can separately neither speak nor harken to any other nation, nor maintain with it any of the international relations whatever and would be disowned as Nations if presenting themselves in that character.

The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.

The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them?

In explaining the proceedings of Virga in 98-99, the state of things at that time was the more properly appealed to, as it has been too much overlooked. The doctrines combated are always a key to the arguments employed. It is but too common to read the expressions of a remote period thro' the modern meaning of them, & to omit guards agst misconstruction not anticipated. A few words with a prophetic gift, might have prevented much error in the glosses on those proceedings. The remark is equally applicable to the Constitution itself.

Having thrown these thoughts on paper in the midst of interruptions added to other dangers of inaccuracy, I will ask the favor of you to return the letter after perusal. I have latterly taken this liberty with more than one of my corresponding friends. And every lapse of very short periods becomes now a fresh apology for it.

Neither Mrs. M. nor myself have forgotten the promised visit which included Mrs. Rives, and we flatter ourselves the fulfilment of it, will not be very distant. Meanwhile we tender to you both our joint & affecte. salutations.

P. Script. I inclose a little pamphlet rec. a few days ago, which so well repaid my perusal, that I submit it to yours, to be returned only at your leisure. It is handsomely written, and its matter well chosen & interesting. A like task as well executed in every State wd. be of historical value; the more so as the examples might both prompt & guide researches, not as yet too late but rapidly becoming so.

The above letter was written, as the header indicates, in 1833, at the height of the Nullification Crisis. This is but a sampling of the Founders' views on secession, but it is the most complete rebuttal by any of them of the idea that I have ever discovered, and it is made all the better by the fact that it comes from the hand of Madison, who largely wrote the Constitution.

Edit: Changed the highlight color, since blue doesn't show up too well on the default board theme.

[Thanas]

Out of curiosity, where were they split to? I should like to see what people have to say, even if it's not worthy of remaining in this forum.

The spam post was deleted.

[Samuel]

Heh. I remember when my dad realized that our ancestors fought for slavery and not state's rights- when we found a family will.

You've covered motivation and justification- anything else that people have misconceptions you want to clear up?

[Kitsune]

I would not mind seeing this post made sticky and it is quite well written. I have a coworker who is a believer in it being over state's rights and maybe I could print it out for him because you are quite concise.

My idea is that in many of the years following the American Civil War, the Southern States did a tap dance and sung, "We control the Senate, House, Supreme Court, and Presidency, We win, Na, Na, Na." Suddenly, things switch, and they are no longer in control, and they play like kids and scream, "No Fair."

I just finished a Learning Company course on the civil war and the professor is a Virginia professor and he brings up many of the same points which do do here.

He states very clearly that one much use the sources of the time and not those written after the war. He also gives examples of writings from Jefferson Davis from the beginning of the war to show that the Confederation was formed because of slavery.

One item I wanted to point out which might be a bit off topic is that the Slave Power literally could not have lasted for the time it did without its slaves. The slaves allowed the Confederacy to pull an inordinate amount of troops into the field because the slaves did the work.

[Rogue 9]

Heh. I remember when my dad realized that our ancestors fought for slavery and not state's rights- when we found a family will.

You've covered motivation and justification- anything else that people have misconceptions you want to clear up?

The third major thing is defense of Lincoln, which is of course much harder, because Lincoln was doing what it took to hold the rest of the Union together and win the war, regardless of his personal feelings. This makes it easy to attack him as not caring about the slaves. This is not true, of course, as his own writings and speeches show, but neo-Confederates have a nasty tendency to charge that Lincoln was a master hypocrite and political animal, and then use that charge as basis to dismiss his own writings as attempts to talk out of both sides of his mouth, as it were. I usually dismiss attacks on Lincoln as irrelevant to the point (which in most cases they are) and leave it at that, because bogging down in a debate over the morals of one man over a century dead is exactly what they want, since it distracts from highlighting the wrongs of the Slave Power.

[Thanas]

I would not mind seeing this post made sticky and it is quite well written.

In case you failed to notice, we already have a general archive thread dedicated to noteworthy threads. Worthy candidates will be added after a determination made by the forum mods.

[The Spartan]

Quick question, aside from the obvious restrictions within the Confederate Constitution and leaving aside for the moment the complaints about slavery within the Declarations of Secession, are there other sources that refute the idea of the war being about states rights? Namely, I'm thinking about writings, speeches, what have you, that demonstrate a disinterest in States rights that can supplement the loss of rights under the Confederate Constitution?

[Samuel]

Quick question, aside from the obvious restrictions within the Confederate Constitution and leaving aside for the moment the complaints about slavery within the Declarations of Secession, are there other sources that refute the idea of the war being about states rights? Namely, I'm thinking about writings, speeches, what have you, that demonstrate a disinterest in States rights that can supplement the loss of rights under the Confederate Constitution?

Well, there was the fact that the Southerner's were origionally pro-tarrif before they were against it and threated to secede, the large amount of anti-insurrection warfare they were involved in during the Civil War, the Fugitive Slve act, the actual actions of the Confederate government (using the draft), etc.

[Rogue 9]

Quick question, aside from the obvious restrictions within the Confederate Constitution and leaving aside for the moment the complaints about slavery within the Declarations of Secession, are there other sources that refute the idea of the war being about states rights? Namely, I'm thinking about writings, speeches, what have you, that demonstrate a disinterest in States rights that can supplement the loss of rights under the Confederate Constitution?

Well, there's the Cornerstone Address that I quoted in the OP. If you want further confirmation from Stephens, there's this entry from his postwar memoirs:

As for my Savanna speech, about which so much has been said and in regrd to which I am represented as setting forth "slavery" as the "corner-stone" of the Confederacy, it is proper for me to state that that speech was extemporaneous, the reporter's notes, which were very imperfect, were hastily corrected by me; and were published without further revision and with several glaring errors. The substance of what I said on slavery was, that on the points under the old Constitution out of which so much discussion, agitation, and strife between the States had arisen, no future contention could arise, as these had been put to rest by clear language. I did not say, nor do I think the reporter represented me as saying, that there was the slightest change in the new Constitution from the old regarding the status of the African race amongst us. (Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees.)
I admitted that the fathers, both of the North and the South, who framed the old Constitution, while recognizing existing slavery and guarnateeing its continuance under the Constitution so long as the States should severally see fit to tolerate it in their respective limits, were perhaps all opposed to the principle. Jefferson, Madison, Washington, all looked for its early extinction throughout the United States. But on the subject of slavery - so called - (which was with us, or should be, nothing but the proper subordination of the inferior African race to the superior white) great and radical changes had taken place in the realm of thought; many eminent latter-day statesmen, philosophers, and philanthropists held different views from the fathers.

The patriotism of the fathers was not questioned, nor their ability and wisdom, but it devolved on the public men and statesmen of each generation to grapple with and solve the problems of their own times.

The relation of the black to the white race, or the proper status of the coloured population amongst us, was a question now of vastly more importance than when the old Constitution was formed. The order of subordination was nature's great law; philosophy taught that order as the noraml condition of the African amongst European races. Upon this recognized principle of a proper subordination, let it be called slavery or what not, our State institutions were formed and rested. The new Confederation was entered into with this distinct understanding. This principle of the subordination of the inferior to the superior was the "corner-stone" on which it was formed. I used this metaphor merely to illustrate the firm convictions of the framers of the new Constitution that this relation of the black to the white race, which existed in 1787, was not wrong in itself, either morally or politically; that it was in conformity to nature and best for both races. I alluded not to the principles of the new Government on this subject, but to public sentiment in regard to these principles. The status of the African race in the new Constitution was left just where it was in the old; I affirmed and meant to affirm nothing else in this Savannah speech.

My own opinion of slavery, as often expressed, was that if the institution was not the best, or could not be made the best, for both races, looking to the advancement and progress of both, physically and morally, it ought to be abolished. It was far from being what it might and ought to have been. Education was denied. This was wrong. I ever condemned the wrong. Marriage was not recognized. This was a wrong that I condemned. Many things connected with it did not meet my approval but excited my disgust, abhorrence, and detestation. The same I may say of things connected with the best institutions in the best communities in which my lot has been cast. Great improvements were, however, going on in the condition of blacks in the South. Their general physical condition not only as to necessaries but as to comforts was better in my own neighbourhood in 1860, than was that of the whites when I can first recollect, say 1820. Much greater would have been made, I verily believe, but for outside agitation. I have but small doubt that education would have been allowed long ago in Georgia, except for outside pressure which stopped internal reform.

He's a whiny bitch, but even while making excuses he readily admits that slavery was the occasion of secession.

Edit: Actually, you know what? When I come across new sources on this issue, I just throw them here. It's disorganized and haphazard, but it's all the evidence I've compiled. Feel free to use it.

[Kitsune]

According to the lecturer on the American civil war, Stephens' post war book is virtually unreadable. What is your opinion?

[Rogue 9]

According to the lecturer on the American civil war, Stephens' post war book is virtually unreadable. What is your opinion?

Your lecturer is right. It's written in the style of the excerpt I posted. I've never finished the whole thing, or even a significant part of it; I just extracted what's relevant to my interests and never looked back.

[FOG3]

Unless your purpose is pure banality, I fail to see how this even constitutes an argument.

The only state's right issue I'm familiar with in relation to the Civil War is the right to secede from the Union, which none of this challenges. All I see is a hackneyed gotcha maneuver of "look slavery, suxors."

The South historically had more abolitionist groups then the North, but with the Slave Rebellion in Haiti and the close to home rebellion by Nat Turner both involving free educated blacks it is historical fact there was a growing sense of distrust for that approach and looking for another to resolve the issue. With the raid on Harper's Ferry and more importantly Northern Abolitionist deification of a mad man who wanted to cause indiscriminate slaughter of Southerners, there was a sense the North could no longer be trusted to act rationally hence the secession from the Union when the election made it clear they no longer had a meaningful voice. At that point there was ultimately a perceived security issue tied up in the institution of slavery.

That was the reason for secession, and the South's intent was a peaceful secession. The Fort Sumter incident requiring no small amount of spin doctoring to be proper justification for Lincoln to wage war, hence the rise of terminology such as "The War of Northern Aggression." Lincoln was not a proper Abolitionist, and slaves in Union controlled territory including the slave state of Missouri and Union occupied regions of the CSA were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation whose intent primarily revolved around keeping Europe out of the war. Lincoln's interest was in "Restoring the Union" slavery for the most part only getting really caught up in that rather late in the game.

So where are you really going with all that? Invoking Constitutional gurantees in statement meant to secede from a constitutional contract doesn't say anything about sentiments to emancipate, which from what I've seen was favored albeit in a gradual fashion, and would have likely happened earlier if not for the slave rebellions and nature of the overall situation. In many respects fundamentally deriving from the South and the North having very different cultures that didn't get along that well in general.

[CarsonPalmer]

Unless your purpose is pure banality, I fail to see how this even constitutes an argument.

The only state's right issue I'm familiar with in relation to the Civil War is the right to secede from the Union, which none of this challenges. All I see is a hackneyed gotcha maneuver of "look slavery, suxors."

Not at all. It is evidence that slavery was foremost on the minds of Southerners, not states rights, for which they cared little, as evidenced by their demand for the Democratic Party to adopt a platform abandoning popular sovereignty (which
was states rights, and abhorrent in many ways) and enforce a territorial slave code.

The South historically had more abolitionist groups then the North,

Support that statement.

but with the Slave Rebellion in Haiti and the close to home rebellion by Nat Turner both involving free educated blacks it is historical fact there was a growing sense of distrust for that approach and looking for another to resolve the issue.

Rather, they wanted to abandon the issue entirely. Many in Louisiana and other areas of the Deep South even wanted the slave trade to be reopened. Forget abolition, slavery was alive and well in the South.

With the raid on Harper's Ferry and more importantly Northern Abolitionist deification of a mad man who wanted to cause indiscriminate slaughter of Southerners, there was a sense the North could no longer be trusted to act rationally hence the secession from the Union when the election made it clear they no longer had a meaningful voice. At that point there was ultimately a perceived security issue tied up in the institution of slavery.

HAHAHAHA! That isn't even what John Brown planned, for God's sake. Let's lay aside the thesis that he intended to be a martyr, and just look at what he actually wanted to do, which was not to rampage across the South slaughtering Southerners but to establish a haven for free slaves in the Appalachian Mountains.

That isn't even taking into account the fact that Southern secession had nothing to do with John Brown; South Carolina and the Deep South states would have done it in 1856 if Fremont won, at least.

That was the reason for secession, and the South's intent was a peaceful secession.

Peaceful in the sense that it involved the violent seizure of property that was built, maintained, and staffed by the Federal government.

The Fort Sumter incident requiring no small amount of spin doctoring to be proper justification for Lincoln to wage war, hence the rise of terminology such as "The War of Northern Aggression."

What? Fort Sumter was federal property, administered by federal troops, and even on an island constructed by the Federal government. It was attacked by traitors.

Lincoln was not a proper Abolitionist, and slaves in Union controlled territory including the slave state of Missouri and Union occupied regions of the CSA were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation whose intent primarily revolved around keeping Europe out of the war. Lincoln's interest was in "Restoring the Union" slavery for the most part only getting really caught up in that rather late in the game.

This old idiotic canard. Lincoln always wanted to free the slaves, although his racial views progressed as the war went on. He was doing as much as he could at any given time. William Lloyd Garrison and the regular New England abolitionists couldn't have freed the slaves. Only Lincoln could have managed to do the maneuvering needed to pull it off.

So where are you really going with all that? Invoking Constitutional gurantees in statement meant to secede from a constitutional contract doesn't say anything about sentiments to emancipate, which from what I've seen was favored albeit in a gradual fashion, and would have likely happened earlier if not for the slave rebellions and nature of the overall situation.

HAHAHAHA! Slave rebellions? Jefferson gave up on freeing the slaves because of Denmark Vesey, who didn't even kill anybody. He'd already surrendered before Haiti. Calhoun insisted that slavery be recognized as a positive good. Some of the border southerners of the '40's and '50's couched things in terms of eventual abolition, but that was a crock of shit, because they did it at the same time that they were trying to fucking rape Kansas. No, gradual abolition died when Jefferson gave up and the cotton gin was invented.

In many respects fundamentally deriving from the South and the North having very different cultures that didn't get along that well in general.

Yeah, one had slaves, the other fucking didn't. Quit the goddamn apologism.

[Kitsune]

The Lecturer had a point related to the idea of having slaves or not having slaves

The common white man might not have slaves but her had the ability to look down on the slaves. The poor white man could say, "I am poor but at least I am not a darkie slave."

[Samuel]

The only state's right issue I'm familiar with in relation to the Civil War is the right to secede from the Union, which none of this challenges. All I see is a hackneyed gotcha maneuver of "look slavery, suxors."

You skipped the part where James Madison said that the constitution prohibits that, didn't you?

there was a sense the North could no longer be trusted to act rationally hence the secession from the Union when the election made it clear they no longer had a meaningful voice. At that point there was ultimately a perceived security issue tied up in the institution of slavery.

In short, they stopped acting for the good of the country and looked out only for themselves.

That was the reason for secession, and the South's intent was a peaceful secession.

The border states would disagree.

The Fort Sumter incident requiring no small amount of spin doctoring to be proper justification for Lincoln to wage war, hence the rise of terminology such as "The War of Northern Aggression."

Treason isn't enough of a justification?

Lincoln was not a proper Abolitionist, and slaves in Union controlled territory including the slave state of Missouri and Union occupied regions of the CSA were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation whose intent primarily revolved around keeping Europe out of the war. Lincoln's interest was in "Restoring the Union" slavery for the most part only getting really caught up in that rather late in the game.

Lincoln was a politician. News at 11.

which from what I've seen was favored albeit in a gradual fashion, and would have likely happened earlier if not for the slave rebellions and nature of the overall situation.

No.
http://gateway.alternatehistory.com/essays-set.html

The authors point out that the market value of the slaves in the South was 2.7 billion dollars at the time of the civil war.

[The Spartan]

The only state's right issue I'm familiar with in relation to the Civil War is the right to secede from the Union, which none of this challenges.

Wait. Let me see if I get this right. Are you suggesting that the Southern State issued Declarations of Secession that repeatedly complained about wanting to keep their slaves, as demonstrated above, were actually only seceding because they could even though, as Samuel as pointed out, James Madison's essay, as posted by Rogue, refutes the idea that secession was a right of any state?

Or how about this gem:

Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession

again, as posted by Rogue.

You didn't read a goddamn thing did you, asshat? You just skimmed it, realized it didn't suck your Treason-Supporting, Slavery-Loving cock, and spewed horseshit out in message board post form.

[Thanas]

Alright guys, let's not dogpile FOG3 any further.

That said, FOG3, you have got until tomorrow to back up your posts. I suggest you do so or concede the argument.

[The Guid]

"Permanent federal government." So they weren't any happier about secession from the Slave Power than the Union was about secession from itself. Which was amply demonstrated by Confederate treatment of the Unionists of eastern Tennessee, who wished to rejoin the Union; namely, eastern Tennessee was put down and occupied by military force, and pro-Union inhabitants conscripted into the Confederate armies, but that's peripheral to the point.

Hello Rogue 9. I was wondering if you could point me to a good resource about this particular incident? I am not disputing the accuracy of the statement at all, and I want to high five you on an excellent post, but I am very interested in that part of the civil war as it is new to me.

[Rogue 9]

Alright guys, let's not dogpile FOG3 any further.

I request permission to defend my post.

"Permanent federal government." So they weren't any happier about secession from the Slave Power than the Union was about secession from itself. Which was amply demonstrated by Confederate treatment of the Unionists of eastern Tennessee, who wished to rejoin the Union; namely, eastern Tennessee was put down and occupied by military force, and pro-Union inhabitants conscripted into the Confederate armies, but that's peripheral to the point.

Hello Rogue 9. I was wondering if you could point me to a good resource about this particular incident? I am not disputing the accuracy of the statement at all, and I want to high five you on an excellent post, but I am very interested in that part of the civil war as it is new to me.

This is an excerpt from Confederate records cited to me by an opponent on another board concerning the aftermath of Fort Sumter. I don't have a link, though I will attempt to find one.

Quickly following the first proclamation, President Lincoln on the 19th of April proclaimed the first blockade of Southern ports from South Carolina to Texas, which was afterward extended, April 27th, to the ports of North Carolina and Virginia. Another proclamation, May 4th, called for about 40,000 volunteers for three years, and ordered an increase of the regular army by 22,000 soldiers, and of the navy by 18,000 seamen. Orders were also issued to seize all dispatches in telegraph offices; to authorize martial law with suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in certain places; to prohibit sales of munitions of war to Southern States--these and other minor measures showing that actual war was at hand. Under this policy Washington city became a military camp, and the frowning visage of war was on all the country.

The unmistakable import of all these coercive measures caused the secession of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas; at the same time involving Missouri and Kentucky in civil war, and causing the first blood of the great struggle to flow April 19th on the soil of Maryland. Virginia seceding took possession of Harper's Ferry and the Gosport navy yard, thus acquiring a large amount of machinery and munitions, but found Fortress Monroe so well garrisoned as to make its seizure impossible. Virginia troops were rapidly organized by Maj. Gen. R. E. Lee, and with such equipments as could be secured were posted at Harper's Perry, Norfolk and other points. The States seceding with her also occupied all forts and arsenals they could seize, and began in earnest the organization of military commands for the use of the Confederacy.

North Carolina was as loath as Virginia to leave the Union, conservatively avoiding all acts that would place the State in antagonism to the general government. Certain forts were seized by a premature popular attack; but the governor caused them to be restored at once. Nothing warlike occurred until the attempt was made by the reinforcement plan to put South Carolina in peril, and the demand on the State to furnish its quota of troops to put down the so-called rebellion. The governor declined to obey the requisition and took the forts of the State, the arsenal at Fayetteville and the mint at Charlotte into his possession. The State seceded May 20th, and within a month raised a force of over 20,000 volunteers.

The great middle State of Tennessee was so indispensable to the Confederacy that its tardy action produced alarm. The governor urged immediate secession after the fight over Sumter and President Lincoln's call on Tennessee for troops, but the State was hampered by the objection to secession which controlled almost the entire eastern section. Prominent leaders of different parties joined the governor, and at length, in May, the State agreed to enter into an alliance or league with the Confederate government, placing under Confederate control the entire military force, and the question of secession was submitted to the people. This temporary action resulted in the legal secession of this invaluable State and its incorporation with the body of the Confederacy. The governor being authorized by the legislature rapidly organized a large provisional army. Batteries were established on the Mississippi river, several thousand troops were concentrated in west Tennessee, and others were posted in east Tennessee and in camps at other places. Within two months after the passage of the act of May 6th, the energetic governor had put 30,000 troops in the field. The State went at a bound to the front line of its associates.

Keep in mind that these are records of the Confederate government; there's a lot of bullshit in there, and they don't mention the occupation as such, only noting that troops were posted in east Tennessee. But it supports that eastern Tennessee was inhabited by Unionists.

Now for the meat of the issue. This is an excerpt of a letter written in 1861 by William Brownlow, at that time editor of the Knoxville Whig newspaper and later the postwar governor of Tennessee. The letter was written in the days before the referendum on the Ordinance of Secession, and recounts a reign of terror inflicted upon those who would vote to remain in the Union. I include the first section because it has the added bonus of highlighting just why it was critically important for Lincoln to not attempt to immediately abolish slavery before winning the war. Source.

Now, sir, allow me further to say that the Union men of the border Slave States are loyal to their Government, and do not regard the election of Lincoln as any just cause for dissolving this Union. We believe that slavery had very little to do with inaugurating armed secession, which commenced at Charleston, to overthrow the United States Government: it was the loss of the offices, power, and patronage of the Government by corrupt politicians and bad men in the South, who had long controlled the Government. Believing this, as we honestly do, we can never, like Mexico, inaugurate political conflicts and anarchy by armed secession. We can never agree to assist in the inauguration of a Government of conventions by armed secession, - which Government, in the case of England and her Rump Parliament, resulted in the Protectorate of Cromwell, and in France, in the military despotism of Bonaparte, and in both cases resulted in anarchy, as it is bound to do in this country if not put down by the power of the Government.

While I say this, let me say, in all candor, that if we were once convinced in the border Slave States that the Administration at Washington, and the people of the North who are backing up the Administration with men and money, contemplated the subjugation of the South or the abolishing of slavery, there would not be a Union man among us in twenty-four hours. Come what might, sink or swim, survive or perish, we would fight you to the death, and we would unite our fortunes and destinies with even these demoralized seceded States, for whose leaders and laws we have no sort of respect. But we have not believed, nor do we yet believe, that the Administration has such purposes in view. Demagogues and designing men charge it here, and by this means enlist thousands under their banner who, otherwise, would never support their wicked schemes of secession. We Union men believe that the blow was struck upon Fort Sumter to induce Virginia to go out, and to create sympathy elsewhere, and that the Administration at Washington is seeking to repossess its forts and property and to preserve its existence; and, as long as we believe this, we are for the Union and the Administration.

*******************

We are in the midst of a reign of terror in Tennessee, and where it will end, and in what, I am not able to conjecture. We vote for or against the Ordinance of Secession on the 8th of June; and, although there is a majority of the voters of the State utterly and irreconcilably opposed to Secession, I can't promise you that it will not carry. Fraud and force, and all the other appliances of Secessionism, will be brought to bear in carrying the State out of the Union. When overpowered and voted down, we shall be forced to submit. When I surrender, it will be because I can no longer help myself; but it shall be under protest, claiming the right, as a Union man, to curse this whole movement in my heart of hearts! And, whether in or out of the Union, as long as I remember it was Washington who told us, "The Constitution is sacredly obligatory upon all;" and that it was Jackson who told us, "The Union, it must be preserved," - I shall offer this prayer upon the altar of my country: Mania to the brain of him who would conceive, and palsy to the arm of him who would perpetrate, the dissolution of the Union!

And, whether my humble voice is hushed in death, or my press is muzzled by foul legislation, I beg you, and all into whose hands this letter may fall, to credit no Secession falsehood which may represent me as having changed.

The last paragraph relates to Brownlow's fear that his press would be seized by the Confederates.

For more from Brownlow, I recommend reading this editorial from the Knoxville Whig, dating January 12, 1861, denouncing the Confederacy, but I will not quote it, since it doesn't relate the occupation, which hadn't yet occurred. Also is this excerpt from a statement of principles he issued while running for governor of Tennessee, relating the means of Confederate propaganda. But rather than continue to quote a newsman and politician for my evidence, allow me to present a field report of Colonel William Wood of the Confederate army in Tennessee, detailing the extent of the pro-Union counter-rebellion centered around Knoxville. Link.

KNOXVILLE, TENN., NOV. 11, 1861.

GENERAL S. COOPER, Adjutant-General, &c.: -

SIR: - My fears expressed to you by letter and dispatches of the 4th and 5th inst. have been realized by the destruction of no less than five railroad-bridges. The indications were apparent to me; but I was powerless to prevent it.

The whole country now is in a state of rebellion. A thousand men are within six miles of Strawberry Plains Bridge, and an attack is contemplated to-morrow. I have sent Colonel Powell there with two hundred infantry, one company of cavalry, and about one hundred citizens armed with shot-guns and country rifles.

Five hundred Unionists left Hamilton county today, - we suppose, to attack Lowden Bridge. I have Major Campbell there, with two hundred infantry and one company of cavalry.

I have about the same force at this point, and a cavalry company at Washington bridge. An attack was made there on yesterday. Our men succeeded in beating them off; but they are gathering in large force, and may secure it in a day or two.

They are not yet fully organized, and have no subsistence to enable them to hold out long. A few regiments and vigorous means would have a powerful effect in putting it down. A mild or conciliating policy will do no good: they must be punished, and some of the leaders punished to the extent of the laws.

I have arrested six of the men who were engaged in firing the Lick Creek bridge, and I desire to have instructions from you as to the proper disposition of them. The slow course of civil law in punishing such incendiaries, it seems to me, will not have the salutary effect which is desired.

I learned from two gentlemen just arrived that another camp is being formed about two miles from here, in Sevier county, and already three hundred are in camp. They are being reinforced from Blount, Roane, Johnson, Greene, Carter, and other counties.

I feel it to be my duty to place this city under martial law, as there were a large majority of the people sympathizing with the enemy and communicating with them by the unfrequented mountain-paths, and to prevent surprises and the destruction of public property. I need not say that great alarm is felt by the few Southern men here. They are finding places of safety for their families, and would gladly enlist if we had arms for them. I have had all the arms in the city seized, and authorized Major Campbell to impress all he can find in the hands of Union men.

Very truly,
WM. B. WOOD.

And nine days later on November 20:

KNOXVILLE, NOVEMBER 20, 1861.

TO HON. J. P. BENJAMIN, Secretary of War: -

SIR: - The rebellion in East Tennessee has been put down in some of the counties, and will be effectually suppressed in less than two weeks in all the counties. Their camps in Sevier and Hamilton counties have been broken up, and a large number of them made prisoners. Some are confined in this place, and others sent to Nashville. In a former communication, I inquired of the Department what I should do. It is a mere farce to arrest them and turn them over to the courts. Instead of having the effect to intimidate them, it really gives encouragement and emboldens them in their traitorous conduct. Patterson, the son-in-law of Andrew Johnson, State Senator Pickens, and several other members of the Legislature, besides others of influence and distinction in their counties, - these men have encouraged the rebellion, but have so managed as not to be found in arms. Nevertheless, all their actions and words have been unfriendly to the Government of the Confederate States. Their wealth and influence have been exerted in favor of the Lincoln Government, and they are the parties most to blame.

They really deserve the gallows, and, if consistent with the laws, ought speedily to receive their deserts. But there is such a gentle spirit of conciliation in the South, and especially here, that I have no idea that one of them will receive such a sentence at the hands of any jury. I have been here at this station for three months, half the time in command of this post; and I had a good opportunity of learning the feeling pervading this country. It is hostile to the Confederate Government. They will take the oath of allegiance with no intention to observe it. They are the slaves of Johnson and Maynard, and never intend to be otherwise. When arrested, they suddenly become very submissive, and declare they are for peace, and not supporters of the Lincoln Government, but yet claim to be Union men. At one time, while our forces were at Knoxville, they gave it out that a great change had taken place in East Tennessee, and that the people were becoming loyal.

At the withdrawal of the army from here to the Gap, and the first intimation of the approach of the Lincoln army, they were in arms, and scarcely a man but was ready to join it and make war upon us. The prisoners we have all tell us that they had every assurance that the enemy was already in the State and would join them in a few days. I have requested at least that the prisoners I have taken be held, if not as traitors, as prisoners of war. To release them is ruinous. To convict them before a court is next to impossibility. But if they are kept in prison for six months, it will have a good effect.

The bridge-burners and spies ought to be tried at once.

Very respectfully, yours,
W. B. WOOD.

And Secretary Benjamin's response to the above report:

WAR DEPARTMENT, RICHMOND, NOVEMBER 25, 1861.

COLONEL W. B. WOOD: -

SIR: - Your report of the 20th instant is received, and I now proceed to give you the desired instruction in relation to the prisoners of war taken by you among the traitors of East Tennessee.

First. All such as can be identified in having been engaged in bridge-burning are to be tried summarily by drum-head court-martial, and, if found guilty, executed on the spot by hanging. It would be well to leave their bodies hanging in the vicinity of the burned bridges.

Second. All such as have not been so engaged are to be treated as prisoners of war, and sent with an armed guard to Tuscaloosa, Alabama, there to be kept imprisoned at the depot selected by the Government for prisoners of war.

Whenever you can discover that arms are concentrated by these traitors, you will send out detachments, search for and seize the arms. In no case is one of the men known to have been up in arms against the Government to be released on any pledge or oath of allegiance. The time for such measures is past. They are all to be held as prisoners of war, and held in jail to the end of the war. Such as come in voluntarily, take the oath of allegiance, and surrender their arms, are alone to be treated with leniency.

Your vigilant execution of these orders is earnestly urged by the Government.

Your obedient servant,
J. P. BENJAMIN,
Secretary of War.

A ruthless son of a bitch, wasn't he?

Now to the end of the war, and back to Brownlow, who was by the time this report to Congress was written the governor of Tennessee. Link.

GOVERNOR'S MESSAGE.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
Nashville, April 6, 1865.

Secession is an abomination that I cannot too strongly condemn, and one that you cannot legislate against with too much severity. What has it done for our country in the space of four years? It has plunged our country into civil war, paralyzed our commerce, destroyed our agricultural pursuits, suspended the whole trade and business of our country, lessened the value of our property, destroyed many of the pursuits of life, and has involved the South in irretrievable bankruptcy and ruin.

What has it done for Tennessee? It has formed odious and unconstitutional military leagues, passed military bills, and inaugurated a system of oppressive taxation, without consulting the people, and then, in mockery of a free election, has required them by their votes to sanction its usurpation, at the point of the bayonet, under the penalty of imprisonment and death. It has offered a premium for crime, in ordering the discharge of culprits from prison, on condition that they would enter the rebel army, and in recommending the judges to hold no courts for the trial of offenders. It has stained our statute book with the repudiation of honest northern debts, and has palpably violated the Constitution, by attempting, through its unlawful extensions, to do away with the right of suffrage. It has passed laws making it treason to say or do anything in favor of the government of the United States, or against the so-called Confederate States. It has prostrated and overthrown the freedom of speech and of the press; it has involved the whole South in a war whose success is now proven to be utterly hopeless, and which, ere another year roll round, must lead to the ruin of the common people. Its bigoted, murderous, and intolerant spirit has subjected the people of Tennessee to many grievances. Our people have been arrested and imprisoned; our houses have been rudely entered and shamefully pillaged; our families have been subjected to insults; our women and children have been tied up and scourged, or shot by a ruffian soldiery; our towns have been pillaged; our citizens have been robbed of their horses, mules, grain, and meat, and many of them assassinated and murdered.

Hundreds, yes, thousands of our young men, middle-aged and old men, have been driven from our State, and compelled to enter the federal army, in strange regiments, and their bones now lie bleaching upon the many battle-fields of the south and west, and all this because our people were true to the traditions of their fathers, and refused to worship rebel gods. And to the honor of the people be it known, that more regiments to-day swell the number of the armies of the Union than there are living traitors in the ranks of the enemy.

In this once proud capital of the "Volunteer State," there have been thousands of Union refugees, men, women, and children, broken-hearted, naked and starving; a great many are here still. They have fled from the wicked and murderous guerillas, after being robbed of everything they possessed. They have lived in camps or tents, by fires in the open woods, have dragged out a miserable existence for a time, and died among strangers. Hundreds have suffered from actual want of necessary food, shelter, and clothing, while many residences in this rebellious city have been occupied by the families of those who were fighting against their country, or, being citizen rebels, and home traitors, have fled within the rebel lines. These families have remained here protected, and have wielded an over-ruling social influence. Many of them are wealthy, and live in ease and comfort. They have busied themselves in giving information to the enemy, in carrying delicacies to rebel prisoners who have been confined here for their crimes and treason. And it is stated upon undoubted authority, and the fact is notorious in this capital, that the disloyal families never contributed in the slightest degree to the relief of the poor and distressed women and children, or disabled soldiers thrown upon this population by the operations of the war. I state these facts, which may have the appearance of a personal and local character, that you may know how to shape your course when personal and local legislation is called for.

It seems I misremembered when I said Unionists were conscripted; I had apparently misremembered this sentence:

Hundreds, yes, thousands of our young men, middle-aged and old men, have been driven from our State, and compelled to enter the federal army, in strange regiments, and their bones now lie bleaching upon the many battle-fields of the south and west

Which says the men were driven out and joined the federal army to say that they were driven out and forced into the Confederate army. My mistake.

Wikipedia is shit, I know, but they have a good (and more importantly, well-sourced) article on the East Tennessee Convention of 1861, which resolved to create a new state from eastern Tennessee. Unlike West Virginia, the attempt failed.

[Thanas]

Alright guys, let's not dogpile FOG3 any further.

I request permission to defend my post.

Go ahead.

[The Spartan]

Alright guys, let's not dogpile FOG3 any further.

Fair enough. I'll defer in favor of Rogue 9 unless FOG3 chooses to respond to my post directly.

[Rogue 9]

Unless your purpose is pure banality, I fail to see how this even constitutes an argument.

The only state's right issue I'm familiar with in relation to the Civil War is the right to secede from the Union, which none of this challenges. All I see is a hackneyed gotcha maneuver of "look slavery, suxors."

Then you're not looking very carefully. My point is not to simply denigrate the Slave Power by pointing out that they held slaves; that happens by itself without my intervention. My point is that the institution of slavery itself was the cause of the initial secessions, and therefore the ultimate cause of the war. I demonstrated this by showing that it was concern for slavery, not unrelated tyranny of the federal government, that was cited as the primary motivation for the secession by the secessionists themselves. Everyone knows the Confederacy was composed of slave states; simply pointing that out would not add anything.

The South historically had more abolitionist groups then the North, but with the Slave Rebellion in Haiti and the close to home rebellion by Nat Turner both involving free educated blacks it is historical fact there was a growing sense of distrust for that approach and looking for another to resolve the issue.

Then they were misguided as well as fucking evil; if there were no slaves, there could be no slave rebellions, precipitated by free blacks or not.

With the raid on Harper's Ferry and more importantly Northern Abolitionist deification of a mad man who wanted to cause indiscriminate slaughter of Southerners, there was a sense the North could no longer be trusted to act rationally hence the secession from the Union when the election made it clear they no longer had a meaningful voice. At that point there was ultimately a perceived security issue tied up in the institution of slavery.

John Brown did not, as was already pointed out, wish to indiscriminately slaughter Southerners; he wished to establish an armed haven for escaped slaves. His plan in the Harper's Ferry raid was to head south, drawing off slaves as he went and fighting only in self-defense until he and his men had depleted as much of Virginia as possible of its slaves. As for the second point, they had a stranglehold on federal power for eighty years; if they couldn't handle losing one presidential election, then one has to wonder just how dedicated they actually were to republican government.

That was the reason for secession, and the South's intent was a peaceful secession. The Fort Sumter incident requiring no small amount of spin doctoring to be proper justification for Lincoln to wage war, hence the rise of terminology such as "The War of Northern Aggression."

It requires no spin doctoring at all. The fort was federal property, and the state of South Carolina had no claim upon it. Want proof? Here you go:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

As the above bill passed by the South Carolina legislature twenty-five years before clearly states, all claim of the state to the site of the fort was extinguished, and it was wholly the property of the United States federal government. South Carolinian insurgents attacked the fort without first being fired upon (from batteries that had also been given over to the federal government in like manner, I might add), which is an act of war, and since they were citizens of the United States, an act of treason as well.

Lincoln was not a proper Abolitionist, and slaves in Union controlled territory including the slave state of Missouri and Union occupied regions of the CSA were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation whose intent primarily revolved around keeping Europe out of the war. Lincoln's interest was in "Restoring the Union" slavery for the most part only getting really caught up in that rather late in the game.

Irrelevant to the point, but I'll respond anyway. I shall now post a quote from Lincoln popular among his detractors, but I shall do something that said detractors never do and post the following paragraph as well.

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

As you can see, Lincoln was doing no less than what every President should: Putting his duty ahead of his own personal wishes. Which was an excellent thing for the South, I might add, because of this little gem:

Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

So where are you really going with all that? Invoking Constitutional gurantees in statement meant to secede from a constitutional contract doesn't say anything about sentiments to emancipate, which from what I've seen was favored albeit in a gradual fashion, and would have likely happened earlier if not for the slave rebellions and nature of the overall situation.

You couldn't be more wrong. The Slave Power's constitution specifically forbade free states from joining the Confederacy.

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

Robert Barnwell Rhett, chairman of the Slave Power's constitutional convention, directly expressed his wish to form a slaveholders' republic, and his exultation at having done so when the convention was completed. The occasion of secession was the wish to protect the institution of slavery. The Slave Power was not about to abolish slavery as long as it stood as a nation; to do so would obviate the entire reason for its existence.

In many respects fundamentally deriving from the South and the North having very different cultures that didn't get along that well in general.

Yes, there were and are cultural differences, and they were more pronounced at the time of the Civil War than they are today, but the ones that were important were all exacerbated by slavery, primarily the South's agrarian society in contrast to the industrialized North. The existence of slavery permitted that culture to exist; to pretend that they're separate issues is an exercise in gross denial.