The Bottom Line

Home » History » The Civil War, Part 1; Why The South Seceded

The Civil War, Part 1; Why The South Seceded

The following is the first of a three part series on the Civil War; and while the Civil War is a complicated and controversial topic, I feel the misinformation that is currently out there must be addressed. This chapter will be discussing the main reasons the Southern States seceded from the Union. The next will deal with which side started the war; and the final installment shall deal with President Lincoln.  

______________________________________________________________ 

    

     Why did the South secede? The simple answer is that the South seceded because of slavery; and while this is true, in order to really understand the South’s motives for seceding from the United States, we must first go back to the context of Abraham Lincoln’s election. The Republican Party was created as the anti-slavery party; the party to finally accomplish the abolition that the founding fathers had hoped would come to pass. In 1860, the year that Lincoln was elected to the Presidency, the Republicans ran on a platform that had four declarations specifically dealing negatively with the institution of slavery; they were as follows:

“7. That the new dogma that the Constitution of its own force carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with cotemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent, is revolutionary in its tendency and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.

8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no “person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law,” it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.

9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African Slave Trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age, and we call upon congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.

10. That in the recent vetoes by the federal governors of the acts of the Legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted democratic principle of non- intervention and popular sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein.” (1)

     The Democrats also dedicated multiple resolutions to slavery in their political platform, however, both of these resolutions pledged to keep with the status quo; and when the nation chose Lincoln to be our next President, the South believed that his anti-slavery position would become policy, ending that institution in the nation. (2) While Lincoln will be covered more in depth in the final part of this trilogy, his response to the South’s plan of secession must be addressed here.

     Abraham Lincoln was anti-slavery, he felt the institution was immoral, inhumane, and at odds with the Constitution of the United States; however, he also realized that as President his first and most pressing duty was to keep the Union together, even if it meant not abolishing slavery in the nation. Lincoln assured the South in his first Inaugural Address that even though he disagreed with what they were doing, his intention was not to take away their slaves:

“I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” (3)

     But this was not the first time Lincoln conveyed these intentions to the South; indeed, just a few short months before giving this speech, Lincoln wrote in a letter to Alexander Stephens:

“Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.” (4)

     One year before his inauguration, in a speech in New Haven Connecticut, Lincoln again expressed the same sentiment, so that his Southern brothers and sisters would not fear his election:

“We think slavery a great moral wrong, and while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists, we wish to treat it as a wrong in the territories, where our votes will reach it.” (5)

      Again, it is not that Lincoln did not want to end slavery, it was just that he saw that his first and most important duty was to keep the Nation together; for if the Union were to be divided, not only would he have failed his constitutional duties, but slavery itself would be a whole lot harder to abolish. Lincoln explained his actions to Horace Greeley in August of 1862, in a letter that his oft misquoted by his critics:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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.” (6)     

     But despite Lincoln’s promises to the Southern States, despite his assurances that he would not touch slavery in the Southern territories, the South disregarded his word and became the Confederate States of America; officially seceding from the United States. Slavery was so important to the South, that they were willing to throw away the word of Lincoln, and dissolve the Union that their forefathers had fought so hard to establish. But beyond the assurances of Lincoln, how do we know that slavery was the main reason for secession? Well, when one reads the secession documents, Confederate Constitution, and the words of Southern leaders, the issue becomes crystal clear.

     Take for example South Carolina, the first state to secede; their declaration of secession makes it clear on multiple accounts that they were separating in order to preserve the use of their slaves:

“[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding states to the institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations…[T]hey have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery…They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes…A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the states north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common government because he has declared that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction…The slaveholding states will no longer have the power of self-government or self-protection.” (7)

     South Carolina then called for other slaveholding states to join them in a confederacy, stating:

“We…[are] dissolving a union with non-slaveholding confederates and seeking a confederation with slaveholding states. Experience has proved that slaveholding states cannot be safe in subjection to non-slaveholding states…The people of the North have not left us in doubt as to their designs and policy. United as a section in the late presidential election, they have elected as the exponent of their policy one who has openly declared that all the states of the United States must be made Free States or Slave States…In spite of all disclaimers and professions, there can be but one end by the submission by the South to the rule of a sectional anti-slavery government at Washington; and that end, directly or indirectly, must be the emancipation of the slaves of the SouthThe people of the non-slaveholding North are not, and cannot be safe associates of the slaveholding South under a common government…Citizens of the slaveholding states of the United States!…South Carolina desires no destiny separate from yours…We ask you to join us in forming a Confederacy of Slaveholding States.” (8)

     Again, South Carolina makes it painfully clear, that their goal was to preserve slavery in the slaveholding states; they did not trust Lincoln’s promises to leave them be, and feared the “emancipation of the slaves of the South.” It cannot be doubted that South Carolina’s reason for secession was slavery based, as was their call to the other states to join them in a confederacy.

     Mississippi soon joined South Carolina in a slaveholding confederacy, declaring along with them that slavery was their primary cause unto separation:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world…[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. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove. The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787…It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction…It advocates Negro equality, socially and politically…We must either submit to degradation and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers to secure this as well as every other species of property.” (9)

     Mississippi also makes it clear that their position was to identify with slavery, and that they were separating for fear of its abolition by Lincoln and the Republicans. They felt they could not stay connected to a government of a nation who was hostile to the institution of slavery, denied the right of property in slaves, and who advocated Negro equality. Soon after their secession, Mississippi sent a representative to Virginia to inform them that his state had seceded; “setting forth the grievances of the Southern people on the slavery question.” (10)

     When Florida and Alabama seceded, they too explained their main reasons as being involved with slavery:

“All hope of preserving the Union upon terms consistent with the safety and honor of the Slaveholding States has been finally dissipated by the recent indications of the strength of the anti-slavery sentiment in the Free States. (Florida) (11)

“…the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States of America by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama…” (Alabama) (12)

     As you can see, both Florida and Alabama referenced the North’s hostility to slavery, with Alabama also using Lincoln’s election, as their reason for secession from the Union; and soon, Georgia decided to join the Confederacy. Georgia’s declaration followed the pattern of the other Southern States, listing slavery among their main reasons for departing the Union:

“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 partyThe prohibition of slavery in the territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers…[T]he abolitionists and their allies in the northern states have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions.” (13)  

     And like Mississippi before her, Georgia also sent a representative named Henry Benning to Virginia, informing that state that Georgia had separated from the Union, explaining:

What was the reason that induced George to take the step of secession? That reason may be summed up in one single proposition: it was a conviction – a deep conviction on the part of Georgia – that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction was the main cause.” (14)

     Louisiana soon followed suit, and while their secession document did not reference slavery as their reason for separation, they did in fact send a representative to Texas urging them to secede. What was Louisiana’s message to the State of Texas? Commissioner George Williamson explained to the Texans:

Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern Confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery...Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws, and institutionsand they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity…The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery if Texas either did not secede or, having seceded, should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy… As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation…not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slaveholding states are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery. The isolation of any one of them from the others would make her a theatre for abolition emissaries from the North and from Europe. Her existence would be one of constant peril to herself and of imminent danger to other neighboring slave-holding communities…and taking it as the basis of our new government, we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy.” (15)

     Even though they did not admit it in their document, Louisiana admitted to their Texan allies that slavery was their main reason; ironically, Texas had already announced secession before Williamson was even able to arrive! Texas proclaimed their reasons, stating:

“[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 [Texas] – 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 slaveholding states of the Confederacy…In all the non-slave-holding states…the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party…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…By the secession of six of the slave-holding states, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North or unite her destinies with the South.” (16)

     Again, Texas made it quite clear that their secession was to preserve the institution of slavery; and when Virginia next seceded, they identified with the slave-states as well:

“An Ordinance To repeal the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, by the State of Virginia, and to resume all the rights and powers granted under said Constitution…The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention, on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution, were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States. Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain…That said Constitution of the United State of America, is no longer binding on any of the Citizens of this State.” (17)

     Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee also defected from the Union, and while these three states did not explicitly reference slavery as their reasons for departure, it must be pointed out that they did join what South Carolina had previously entitled a “Confederacy of Slaveholding States.” What must also be addressed in regards to Arkansas’ secession from the Union are the comments of one Albert Pike; a highly regarded newspaper owner, legal author and future Confederate General. His explanation of Arkansas’ secession is also quite clear:

“No concessions would now satisfy (and none ought now to satisfy) the South but such as would amount to a surrender of the distinctive principles by which the Republican Party coheres, because none other or less would give the South peace and security. That Party would have to agree that in the view of the Constitution, slaves are property – that slavery might exist and should be legalized and protected in territory hereafter to be acquired to the southwest, and that Negroes and mulattoes cannot be citizens of the United States nor vote at general elections in the states…For that Party to make these concessions would simply be to commit suicide and therefore it is idle to expect from the North – so long as it rules there – a single concession of any value.” (18)

     In other words, the only way to avoid secession in Pike’s view, was to have the Republican government give up their very principles of anti-slavery; something he knew they would not and could not do. To further prove the importance of slavery to the Southern cause, consider the fact that only a week after Lincoln was inaugurated, the Confederacy put together a pro-slavery Constitution. Consider some of the clauses of said Constitution:

“ARTICLE I, Section 9, (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.

ARTICLE IV, Section 2, (1) The citizens of each state…shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any state of this Confederacy with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

ARTICLE IV, Section 2, (3) [A] slave or other person held to service or labor in any state or territory of the Confederate States under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall…be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs.

ARTICLE IV, Section 3, (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory…In all such territory, the institution of Negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States shall be recognized and protected by 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.” (19)

     These articles and clauses of the Confederate Constitution not only explicitly protect the institution of slavery within the Confederacy, but also specifically ban any law that abolishes slavery in a slaveholding state. And while I’m not the first person to point this out, isn’t it odd that a group of people that were so invested in “States rights” made it a point to prohibit any Confederate state from abolishing slavery, in Article 1, Section 9? When you think about it, it is actually quite contradictory and paradoxical of them to do so.

     It is here we must pause and address the Southern apologist claim that the South really seceded due to economic reasons; obviously our exposition of the Southern secession documents shows very clearly that slavery was their main cause for separation, but still this objection must be answered. We must remember that there were eleven states that declared secession, but out of these eleven, only five of them include economics as part of their reasons for leaving; unfortunately for the apologist however, in each case, the economics being discussed by the South are directly related to slavery. Take Mississippi for example;

“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.” (20)   

Or South Carolina:

“We prefer, however, our system of industry…by which starvation is unknown and abundance crowns the land – by which order is preserved by an unpaid police and many fertile regions of the world where the white man cannot labor are brought into usefulness by the labor of the African, and the whole world is blessed by our productions.” (21)

Or Texas:

“They have impoverished the slave-holding states by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.” (Please note that the “partial legislation” thus referenced involves the attempt to abolish slavery; which we know by their distinguishing themselves as “slave-holding states”) (22)

Or Georgia:

“We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition…But by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union…To avoid these evils, we …will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquility.” (Again, the money being spent to acquire, as well as the property being referenced by Georgia is in fact their slave population) (23)

And lest we forget Louisiana:

“Texas [and] Louisiana…have large areas of fertile, uncultivated lands peculiarly adapted to slave labor; and they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity.” (24)

      But it is not enough to just study Confederate documents; we must also look to the words of Confederate leaders and authority figures, as their view of secession it vitally important to our understanding. Why? Because if you want to understand what a movement is about, looking to the leaders of the movement is a good way to find out; especially considering they were the ones who brought about and controlled the movement.

     Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens gave a speech in March of 1861 (shortly after the formation of the Confederate constitution) entitled “African Slavery: The Corner-Stone of the Southern Confederacy” where he stated:

“The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] 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…Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error…and the idea of a government built upon it…Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; 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.” (25)(26)

     But Stephens was not alone this view; Georgian Democrat Senator Alfred Iverson told his associates “I may safely say, however, that nothing will satisfy them [the seceded states] or bring them back short of a full and explicit recognition and guarantee of the safety of their institution of domestic slavery.” (27); While Future General and Secretary of State for the South Robert Toombs (also of Georgia), made the motives of the Confederacy painfully obvious:

“What do these Rebels demand? First, that the people of the United States shall have an equal right to emigrate and settle in the present or an future acquired territories with whatever property they may possess (including slaves)…The second proposition is that property in slaves shall be entitled to the same protection from the government of the United States, in all of its departments, everywhere, which the Constitution confers the power upon it to extend to any other property…We demand in the next place…that a fugitive slave shall be surrendered under the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 without being entitled either to a writ of habeas corpus or trial by jury or other similar obstructions of legislation…Slaves – black “people,” you say – are entitled to trial by jury…You seek to outlaw $4,000,000,000 of property of our people in the territories of the United States. Is not that a cause of war?

(He continued)…My distinguished friend from Mississippi [Mr. Jefferson Davis], another moderate gentleman like myself, proposed simply to get a recognition that we had the right to our own – that man could have property in man – and it met with the unanimous refusal even of the most moderate, Union-saving, compromising portion of the Republican party…Mr. Lincoln thus accepts every cardinal principle of the Abolitionists; yet he ignorantly puts his authority for abolition upon the Declaration of Independence, which was never made any part of the public law of the United States…Very well; you not only want to break down our constitutional rights – you not only want to upturn our social system – your people not only steal our slaves and make them freemen to vote against us – but you seek to bring an inferior race into a condition of equality, socially and politically, with our own people.” (28)   

     Judah P. Benjamin, a U.S. Senator who would become an Attorney General, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State for the Confederacy, offered this viewpoint in 1861: “I never have admitted any power in Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories anywhere, upon any occasion, or at any time…” (29); and two Confederate Diplomats, Clement Clay and John Slidell said respectively:

“Not a decade, nor scarce a lustrum, has elapsed since [America’s] birth that has not been strongly marked by proofs of the growth and power of that anti-slavery spirit of the northern people which seeks the overthrow of that domestic institution of the South, which is not only the chief source of her prosperity but the very basis of her social order and state polity…No sentiment is more insulting or more hostile to our domestic tranquility, to our social order, and our social existence, than is contained in the declaration that our Negroes are entitled to liberty and equality with the white man…To crown the climax of insult to our feelings and menace of our rights, this party nominated to the presidency a man who not only endorses the platform but promises in his zealous support of its principles to disregard the judgment of your courts, the obligations of your Constitution, and the requirements of his official oath, by approving any bill prohibiting slavery in the territories of the United States.” (Note that Clay also refers to slavery as bringing economic prosperity to the South) (30)

“We all consider the election of Mr. Lincoln, with his well-known antecedents and avowed principles and purposes…as conclusive evidence of the determined hostility of the Northern masses to our institutions. We believe that he conscientiously entertains the opinions which he has so often and so explicitly declared, and that having been elected on the [anti-slavery] issues thus presented, he will honestly endeavor to carry them into execution. While now we have no fears of servile insurrection, even of a partial character, we know that his inauguration as President of the United States, with our assent, would have been considered by many of our slaves as the day of their emancipation.” (31)

     It is clear to see from Southern Secession documents, Representatives to other Confederate States, the Confederate Constitution, as well as the words of Confederate leaders, that the main and pressing issue which caused the Southern States to secede was in fact slavery. The South feared that the government under Lincoln, despite his assurances, would abolish the institution of slavery in the South, which is something that on a political, societal, and “moral” level the slaveholding states could not accept. We have also seen the answer to Confederate sympathizers who claim secession was based on economics, by pointing out that the five secession documents that mention economics, as well as Confederate authorities, directly connected slavery to the economic problems they were worried about.

     This has been an explanation on why the South seceded, as told in their own words; thank you for reading, and please join us next weekend for part two of the trilogy: “Which side started the Civil War?”  

Sources 

1.      1860 Republican Party Platform: http://www.cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html

 

2.      1860 Democrat Party Platform: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dem1860.asp

 

3.      Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

 

4.      The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, “Letter to Alexander H. Stephens” (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

 

5.      The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, “Speech at New Haven, Connecticut” (March 6, 1860), p. 16.

 

6.      The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, “Letter to Horace Greeley” (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

 

7.      Edward McPherson, The Political History of the United States of America During the Great Rebellion (Washington: Philip & Solomons, 1865), pp.15-16, “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union,” December 24, 1860.

 

8.      Convention of South Carolina, “Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States,” Teaching American History, December 25, 1860 http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=433

 

9.      “A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union, January 9, 1861,” The Civil War Home Page http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp

 

10.  Addresses Delivered Before the Virginia State Convention, February 1861 (Richmond: Wyatt M. Elliott, 1861), “Address of Hon. Fulton Anderson, of Mississippi,” p. 7

 

11.  Orville Victor, The History, Civil, Political and Military, of the Southern Rebellion (New York: James D. Torrey, 1861), Vol. 1, p. 194, Florida, “Preliminary Resolution Prior to Secession,” January 7, 1861.

 

12.  Orville Victor, The History, Civil, Political, and Military, of the Southern Rebellion (New York: James D. Torrey, 1861) Vol. 1, p. 195, “An Ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of Alabama and the other States united under the compact styled ‘The Constitution of the United States of America,’” January 11, 1861.

 

13.  “A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Georgia to Secede from the Federal Union, January 29, 1861,” The Civil War Home Page http://www.civil-war.net/pages/georgia_declaration.asp

 

14.  Addresses Delivered Before the Virginia State Convention, February 1861 (Richmond: Wyatt M. Elliott, 1861), “Address of Hon. Henry L. Benning, of Georgia,” p. 21.

 

15.  Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas, E. W. Winkler, editor (Austin Printing Company, 1912), pp. 122-123, address of George Williamson, Commissioner from Louisiana, February 11, 1861. See also “Address of George Williamson to the Texas Secession Convention,” American Civil War.com http://americancivilwar.com/documents/williamson_address.html

 

16.  “A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union, February 2, 1861,” The Civil War Home Page http://www.civil-war.net/pages/texas_declaration.asp

 

17.  Virginia Convention (1861: Richmond), Records, 1861–1961 (bulk 1861), Accession 40586, State Government Records Collection, Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia. http://www.virginiamemory.com/docs/04-17-1861_trans_ck.pdf

 

18.  Southern Pamphlets on Secession, November 1860 – April 1861, Jon Wakelyn, editor (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), pp. 334, 338, “State or Province? Bond or Free?” by Albert Pike, March 4, 1861.

 

19.  “Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861,” Avalon Project. See also Edward McPherson, The Political History of the United States of America During the Great Rebellion (Washington: Philip & Solomons, 1865), pp. 98-99. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

 

20.  “A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union,” The Civil War Home Page, January 9, 1861 http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp

 

21.  Edward McPherson, The Political History of the United States of America During the Great Rebellion (Washington: Philip & Solomons, 1865), p. 15, “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union,” December 24, 1860.

 

22.  “A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union, February 2, 1861,” The Civil War Home Page http://www.civil-war.net/pages/texas_declaration.asp

 

23.  “Georgia Declaration of Secession,” The Civil War Home Page, January 29, 1861 http://www.civil-war.net/pages/georgia_declaration.asp

 

24.  Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas, E. W. Winkler, editor (Austin Printing Company, 1912), pp. 122-123, address of George Williamson, Commissioner from Louisiana, February 11, 1861. See also “Address of George Williamson to the Texas Secessiono Convention,” American Civil War.com http://americancivilwar.com/documents/williamson_address.html

 

25.  Echoes From The South (New York: E. B. Treat & Co., 1866), p. 85. See also The Pulpit and Rostrum: Sermons, Orations, Popular Lectures, &c. (New York: E. D. Barker, 1862), pp. 69-70, “African Slavery, the Cornerstone of the Southern Confederacy,” by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy.

 

26.  Echoes From The South, pp. 85-86. See also The Pulpit and Rostrum, pp. 69-70, “African Slavery, the Cornerstone of the Southern Confederacy,” by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy.

 

27.  Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington: Congressional Globe Office, 1861), p. 589, January 28, 1861. See also Thomas Ricaud Martin, The Great Parliamentary Battle and the Farewell Addresses of Southern Senators on the Eve of the Civil War (New York and Washington: Neale Publishing Co., 1905), p. 214, farewell speech of Alfred Iverson, January 28, 1861.

 

28.  Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington: Congressional Globe Office, 1861), pp. 268-270, January 7, 1861. See also Thomas Ricaud Martin, The Great Parliamentary Battle and the Farewell Addresses of Southern Senators on the Eve of the Civil War (New York and Washington: Neale Publishing Co., 1905), pp. 148-152, 167, 169, 170-171, 172, farewell speech of Robert Toombs, January 7, 1861.

 

29.  Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington: Congressional Globe Office, 1861), p. 238, January 3, 1861. See also Thomas Ricaud Martin, The Great Parliamentary Battle and the Farewell Addresses of Southern Senators on the Eve of the Civil War (New York and Washington: Neale Publishing Co., 1905), pp. 222-223, speech of Judah P. Benjamin, January 3, 1861.

 

30.  Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington: Congressional Globe Office, 1861), p. 486, January 21, 1861. See also Thomas Ricaud Martin, The Great Parliamentary Battle and the Farewell Addresses of Southern Senators on the Eve of the Civil War (New York and Washington: Neale Publishing Co., 1905), pp. 202, 204, farewell speech of Clement Clay, January 21, 1861.

 

31.  Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington: Congressional Globe Office, 1861), p. 721, February 4, 1861. See also Thomas Ricaud Martin, The Great Parliamentary Battle and the Farewell Addresses of Southern Senators on the Eve of the Civil War (New York and Washington: Neale Publishing Co., 1905), pp. 222-223, farewell speech of John Slidell, February 4, 1861.

 

 

Advertisements

1 Comment

  1. Kevin Mays says:

    Very well written. Nice to see something on the Civil War that is unbiased and not so heavily flavored of opinion that one cannot make a valid decision.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Bottom Line Tweets

%d bloggers like this: