Timeline of Slavery and Secession

MattLul

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
8
Inspired by excellent work by Pat Young and fellow collaborators on his timelines I wanted to start building out a timeline of the discussion of slavery in regards to secession and contemporary sources.

To start, some rough ground rules if you want to contribute

* This is not a debate about slavery being the/a cause of the Civil War. The assumption is that slavery played a significant role and documenting that role. Anyone can of course create another thread documenting anything not to do with slavery.
* Discussion about the contemporary material is fully welcome, not every post needs to be a source and info. Please keep civil and please let's not get into debating anything beyond the scope of the contemporary comments themselves or something directly relevant.
* I will be linking a timeline, the posts here are welcome and intended to be more thorough, I plan to link to the Civil War posts in the timeline.
* https://www.sutori.com/story/slavery-and-csa-secession
* When posting a contemporary source please follow the below example with the requested format
* Start with a bold date and author (potentially a title of some sort either made up by you are from the document cited, etc), further technically correct citing standards are up to you, this is just to get a high level view easier
* Please don't put too many sources in a single post, will be easier to link back to, potentially even one post per source or at least a cluster of relevant sources only
* Link your sources unless there is no link and then please include full citation information
* Include contextual commentary, at least a few sentences around, a full paragraph etc... please no single cherry-picked sentence. On the timeline I will likely do so but again will link back here.
* Anything else is up to personal preference, quotes, custom quote formatting, etc


December 24, 1860
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union


https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#South_Carolina

----
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.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

----
 

MattLul

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
8
January 9th, 1861
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.


https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Mississippi
(further context found here http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/missconv/missconv.html)

----
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. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

----
 

MattLul

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
8
January 29th, 1861

Georgia Declaration of Causes of Secession


https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Georgia

----
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.
----
 

MattLul

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
8
MattL said:
January 9th, 1861
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.


https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Mississippi
(further context found here http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/missconv/missconv.html)

----



----
Just as a correction I believe the correct date for the Mississippi declaration is actually January 26th, following the secession convention notes it's hard to place it, though that seems to be it
 

MattLul

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
8
January 21st, 1861

Jefferson Davis Farewell Speech to the US Senate

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/farewell-speech/

----
It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born—to use the language of Mr. Jefferson—booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal—meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body politic. These were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North has been endeavoring of late to do – to stir up insurrection among our slaves? Had the Declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the Prince to be arraigned for stirring up insurrection among them? And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever their connection with the mother country? When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men—not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three-fifths.
----
 

MattLul

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
8
March 21st, 1861

“Corner Stone” Speech by Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens


http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

----
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 institution African slavery as it exists amongst 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 that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged 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 government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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 normal 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 has been 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 were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. 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 men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that 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.
----
 

MattLul

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
8
February 19th, 1861

South Carolina Commissioner to Virginia Secession Convention


http://secession.richmond.edu/docum...=1&order=date&direction=ascending&id=pb.1.104

----
This, gentlemen, brings me directly to the causes which I desire to lay before you. For fully thirty years or more, the people of the Northern States have assailed the institution of African slavery. They have assailed African slavery in every form in which, by our contiguity of territory and our political alliance with them, they have been permitted to approach it.

During that period of thirty years, large masses of their people have associated themselves together for the purpose of abolishing the institution of African slavery, and means, the most fearful were suggested to the subject race—rising and murdering their masters being the charities of those means. In pursuance of this idea, their representatives in the federal government have endeavored by all the means that they could bring to bear, so to shape the legislation as almost to limit, to restrict, to restrain the slaveholding States from any political interest in the accretion of the government. So that as my distinguished colleague [Judge Benning], stated to you on yesterday, the decree goes forth that there are to be no more slave States admitted into the Union.

Secondly, then, in pursuance of the same purpose that I have indicated, a large majority of the States of the Confederation have refused to carry out those provisions of the Constitution which are absolutely necessary to the existence of the slave States, and many of them have stringent laws to prevent the execution of those provisions ; and eight of these States have made it criminal, even in their citizens to execute these provisions of the Constitution of the United States, which, by the progress of the government, have become now necessary to the protection of an industry which furnishes to the commerce of the Republic $250,000,000 per annum, and on which the very existence of twelve millions of people depends. In not one of these seventeen States can a citizen of one of the fifteen States claim his main property, and in many of them the persons of the citizens of these States have been violated, and in numerous cases the violence has resulted in murder.

Third. The citizens of not less than five of our confederates of the North have invaded the territory of their confederates of the slave-holding States, and proclaimed the intention of abolishing slavery by the annihilation of the slaveholders; and two of these States have refused to surrender the convicted felons to the demand of the invaded States; and one of these—one of the most influential—one, perhaps, recognized as the representative of what is called American sentiment and civilization, has, in its highest solemn form, approved of that invasion ; and numbers of people, scattered throughout the whole extent of these seventeen States, have made votive offerings to the memory of the invaders.

Fourth. The most populous, and by far, the most potent of our late confederates, has for years proclaimed, through the federal legislature and by her own sovereign act, that the conflict between slavery and non-slavery is a conflict for life and death. Now, there is the calm, oft-reiterated decree of a State containing three millions of people, conducting four-fifths of the commerce of the Republic, with additional millions diffused through the whole of these 17 States. And many of these States themselves have decreed that the institution of slavery is an offence to God, and, therefore, they are bound by the most sacred attributes which belong to human nature, to exterminate it. They have declared, in their most solemn form, that the institution of slavery, as it exists in the States of their political confederates, is an offence to their social institutions, and, therefore, that it should be exterminated. Finally, acting upon the impulse of their duties of self-protection and self-preservation, majorities, large majorities throughout the whole of these 17 States have placed the executive power of the Federal Government in the hands of those who are bound by the most sacred obligations, by their obligations to God, by their obligations to the social institutions of man, by their obligations of self-protection and self-preservation, to place the system of slavery as it exists in the Southern States upon a course of certain and final extinction. Twenty millions of people, having in their hands one of the strongest Governments on earth, and impelled by a perfect recognition of the most powerful obligations which fall upon man, have declared that the vital interests of eight millions of people shall be exterminated. In other words, the decree, the result of this cumulation which I have endeavored to show you, was inaugurated on the 6th of November last, so far as the institution of slavery is concerned, in the confederates of the Northern non-slaveholding States. That decree is annihilation, and you can make nothing shorter of it.

Now, gentlemen, the people of South Carolina, being a portion of these eight millions of people, have only to ask themselves, is existence worth the struggle? Their answer to this question, I have submitted to you in the form of their Ordinance of Secession.

Gentlemen, I see before me men who have observed all the records of human life, and many, perhaps, who have been chief actors in many of its gravest scenes, and I ask such men if in all their lore of human society they can offer an example like this? South Carolina has 300,000 whites, and 400,000 slaves. These 300,000 whites depend for their whole system of civilization on these 400,000 slaves. Twenty millions of people, with one of the strongest Governments on the face of the earth, decree the extermination of these 400,000 slaves, and then ask, is honor, is interest, is liberty, is right, is justice, is life, worth the struggle?

----
 

MattLul

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
8
December 25th, 1860

Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States


http://teachingamericanhistory.org/...ess-of-south-carolina-to-slaveholding-states/

----
The Address of the people of South Carolina, assembled in Convention, to the people of the Slaveholding States of the United States

...


It is not at all surprising, such being the character of the Government of the United States, that it should assume to possess power over all the institutions of the country. The agitations on the subject of slavery, are the natural results of the consolidation of the Government. Responsibility, follows power; and if the people of the North, have the power by Congress–“to promote the general welfare of the United States,” by any means they deem expedient–why should they not assail and overthrow the institution of slavery in the South? They are responsible for its continuance or existence, in proportion to their power. A majority in Congress, according to their interested and perverted views, is omnipotent. The inducements to act upon the subject of slavery, under such circumstances, were so imperious, as to amount almost to a moral necessity. To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union–in other words, on any constitutional subject–for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.

...

It cannot be believed, that our ancestors would have assented to any union whatever with the people of the North, if the feelings and opinions now existing amongst them, had existed when the Constitution was framed. There was then, no Tariff–no fanaticism concerning negroes. It was the delegates from New England, who proposed in the Convention which framed the Constitution, to the delegates from South Carolina and Georgia, that if they would agree to give Congress the power of regulating commerce by a majority, that they would support the extension of the African Slave Trade for twenty years. African Slavery, existed in all the States, but one. The idea, that the Southern States would be made to pay that tribute to their Northern confederates, which they had refused to pay to Great Britain; or that the institution of African slavery, would be made the grand basis of a sectional organization of the North to rule the South, never crossed the imaginations of our ancestors. The Union of the Constitution, was a union of slaveholding States. It rests on slavery, by prescribing a Representation in Congress for three-fifths of our slaves. There is nothing in the proceedings of the Convention which framed the Constitution, to shew, that the Southern States would have formed any other Union; and still less, that they would have formed a Union with more powerful non-slaveholding States, having majority in both branches of the Legislature of the Government. They were guilty of no such folly. Time and the progress of things have totally altered the relations between the Northern and Southern States, since the Union was first established. That identity of feeling, interests and institutions which once existed, is gone. They are now divided, between agricultural–and manufacturing, and commercial States; between slaveholding and non-slaveholding States. Their institutions and industrial pursuits, have made them, totally different peoples. That Equality in the Government between the two sections of the Union which once existed, no longer exists. We but imitate the policy of our fathers in 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. Indeed, no people ever expect to preserve its rights and liberties, unless these be in its own custody. To plunder and oppress, where plunder and oppression can be practiced with impunity, seems to be the natural order of things. The fairest portions of the world elsewhere, have been turned into wilderness; and the most civilized and prosperous communities, have been impoverished and ruined by anti-slavery fanaticism. 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. It is true, that amongst those who aided in this election, there are various shades of anti-slavery hostility. But if African slavery in the Southern States, be the evil their political combination affirms it to be, the requisitions of an inexorable logic, must lead them to emancipation. If it is right, to preclude or abolish slavery in a territory–why should it be allowed to remain in the States? The one is not at all more unconstitutional than the other, according to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. And when it is considered, that the Northern States will soon have the power to make that Court what they please, and that the Constitution has never been any barrier whatever to their exercise of power–what check can there be, in the unrestrained councils of the North, to emancipation? There is sympathy in association, which carries men along without principle; but when there is principle–and that principle is fortified by long-existing prejudices and feelings, association is omnipotent in party influences. 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 South. The hypocrisy of thirty years–the faithlessness of their whole course from the commencement of our union with them, shew that the people of the non-slaveholding North, are not, and cannot be safe associates of the slaveholding South, under a common Government. Not only their fanaticism, but their erroneous views of the principles of free governments, render it doubtful whether, separated from the South, they can maintain a free government amongst themselves. Numbers with them, is the great element of free government. A majority, is infallible and omnipotent. “The right divine to rule in kings,” is only transferred to their majority. The very object of all Constitutions, in free popular Government, is to restrain the majority. Constitutions, therefore, according to their theory, must be most unrighteous inventions, restricting liberty. None ought to exist; but the body politic ought simply to have a political organization, to bring out and enforce the will of the majority. This theory may be harmless in a small community, having identity of interests and pursuits; but over a vast State–still more, over a vast Confederacy, having various and conflicting interests and pursuits–it is a remorseless despotism. In resisting it, as applicable to ourselves, we are vindicating the great cause of free government, more important, perhaps, to the world, than the existence of all the United States. Nor in resisting it, do we intend to depart from the safe instrumentality, the system of government we have established with them, requires. In separating from them, we invade no rights–no interest of theirs. We violate, no obligation or duty to them. As separate, independent States in Convention, we made the Constitution of the United States with them; and as separate, independent States, each State acting for itself, we adopted it. South Carolina acting in her sovereign capacity, now thinks proper to secede from the Union. She did not part with her Sovereignty, in adopting the Constitution. The last thing, a State can be presumed to have surrendered, is her Sovereignty. Her Sovereignty, is her life. Nothing but a clear, express grant, can alienate it. Inference is inadmissible. Yet it is not at all surprising, that those who have construed away all the limitations of the Constitution, should also by construction, claim the annihilation of the Sovereignty of the States. Having abolished barriers to their omnipotence, by their faithless constructions in the operations of the General Government, it is most natural that they should endeavor to do the same towards us, in the States. The truth is, they, having violated the express provisions of the Constitution, it is at an end, as a compact. It is morally obligatory only on those, who choose to accept its perverted terms. South Carolina, deeming the compact not only violated in particular features, but virtually abolished by her Northern confederates, withdraws herself as a party, from its obligations. The right to do so, is denied by her Northern confederates. They desire to establish a sectional despotism, not only omnipotent in Congress, but omnipotent over the States; and as if to manifest the imperious necessity of our secession, they threaten us with the sword, to coerce submission to their rule.


----
 

MattLul

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
8
February 18th, 1861

Georgia Commissioner to Virginia Secession Convention


http://secession.richmond.edu/docum...t=1&order=date&direction=ascending&id=pb.1.86

----
The PRESIDENT—

In further execution of the order of the day, I have the honor of introducing to you the Hon. HENRY L. BENNING, of Georgia.

...

What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This 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, sir, was the main cause. It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil. But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken. It therefore becomes important to inquire whether this conviction was well founded.


Is it true, then, that unless there had been a separation from the North, slavery would be abolished in Georgia? I address myself to the proofs of that case.

In the first place, I say that the North hates slavery, and, in using that expression I speak wittingly. In saying that the Black Republican party of the North hates slavery, I speak intentionally. If there is a doubt upon that question in the mind of any one who listens to me, a few of the multitude of proofs which could fill this room, would, I think, be sufficient to satisfy him. I beg to refer to a few of the proofs that are so abundant; and the first that I shall adduce consists in two extracts from a speech of Lincoln's, made in October, 1858. They are as follows : "I have always hated slavery as much as any abolitionist; I have always been an old line Whig; I have always hated it and I always believed it in the course of ultimate extinction, and if I were in Congress and a vote should come up on the question, whether slavery should be excluded from the territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should."

These are pregnant statements; they avow a sentiment, a political principle of action, a sentiment of hatred to slavery as extreme as hatred can exist. The political principle here avowed is, that his action against slavery is not to be restrained by the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. I say, if you can find any degree of hatred greater than that, I should like to see it. This is the sentiment of the chosen leader of the Black Republican party ; and can you doubt that it is not entertained by every solitary member of that same party? You cannot, I think. He is a representative man; his sentiments are the sentiments of his party; his principles of political action are the principles of political action of his party. I say, then; it is true, at least, that the Republican party of the North hates slavery.

----
 

MattLul

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
8
February 18th, 1861

Mississippi Commissioner to Virginia Secession Convention


http://secession.richmond.edu/docum...t=1&order=date&direction=ascending&id=pb.1.74

----
THE COMMISSIONER FROM MISSISSIPPI

The President stated that in pursuance of the resolution of Friday last, he begged leave to announce to the Convention, that the Hon. FULTON ANDERSON, the Commissioner from Mississippi, would now address them :

Mr. ANDERSON ascended the platform near the President's Chair, and addressed the Convention, as follows :

[Mr. ANDERSON:]

...

I propose, gentlemen, in discharge of my mission to you, briefly to invite your attention to a review of the events which have transpired in Mississippi since the fatal day when that sectional Northern party triumphed over the Constitution and the Union at the recent election, and afterwards to the causes which have induced the action of my State.

On the 29th of November last, the Legislature of Mississippi, by an unanimous vote, called a Convention of her people, to take into consideration the existing relations between the Federal Government and herself, and to take such measures for the vindication of her sovereignty and the protection of her institutions as should appear to be demanded. At the same time, a preamble, setting forth the grievances of the Southern people on the slavery question, and a resolution, declaring that the secession of each aggrieved State, was the proper remedy, was adopted by a vote almost amounting to unanimity. The last clause of the preamble and the resolution, are as follows :

"Whereas, they ( the people of the non-slaveholding States) have elected a majority of electors for President and Vice-President, on the ground that there exists an irreconcilable conflict between the two sections of the Confederacy, in reference to their respective systems of labor, and in pursuance of their hostility to us and our institutions, have thus declared to the civilized world that the powers of the government are to be used for the dishonor and overthrow of the Southern section of this great Confederacy. Therefore, be it

"Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Mississippi, That in the opinion of those who constitute said Legislature, the secession of each aggrieved State is the proper remedy for these injuries."

On the day fixed for the meeting of the Convention, that body convened in Jackson, and on the 9th January, 1861, proceeded to the adoption of an ordinance of secession from the Federal Union, by which the State of Mississippi withdrew from the Federal Government the powers theretofore confided to it, and assumed an independent position among the powers of the earth; determined thenceforth to hold the people of the non-slaveholding section of the late confederacy as she holds the balance of mankind : enemies in war, and in peace friends. But at the same time, and by the same ordinance, it was provided "that the State of Mississippi hereby gives her consent to form a Federal Union with such of the States as may have seceded, or may secede, from the Union of the United States of America, upon the basis of the present Constitution of the United States."

This action of the Convention of Mississippi, gentlemen of the Convention, was the inevitable result of the position which she, with other slaveholding States, had already taken, in view of the anticipated result of the recent Presidential election, and must have been foreseen by every intelligent observer of the progress of events.


As early as the 10th of February, 1860, her Legislature had, with the general approbation of her people, adopted the following resolution :

"Resolved, That the election of a President of the United States by the votes of one section of the Union only, on the ground that there exists an irrepressible conflict between the two sections in reference to their respective systems of labor and with an avowed purpose of hostility to the institution of slavery, as it prevails in the Southern States, and as recognized in the compact of Union, would so threaten a destruction of the ends for which the Constitution was formed, as to justify the slaveholding States in taking council together for their separate protection and safety."

This was the ground taken, gentlemen, not only by Mississippi, but by other slaveholding States, in view of the then threatened purpose, of a party founded upon the idea of unrelenting and eternal hostility to the institution of slavery, to take possession of the power of the Government and use it to our destruction. It cannot, therefore, be pretended that the Northern people did not have ample warning of the disastrous and fatal consequences that would follow the success of that party in the election, and impartial history will emblazon it to future generations, that it was their folly, their recklessness and their ambition, not ours, which shattered into pieces this great confederated Government, and destroyed this great temple of constitutional liberty which their ancestors and ours erected, in the hope that their descendants might together worship beneath its roof as long as time should last.

But, in defiance of the warning thus given and of the evidences ao cumulated from a thousand other sources, that the Southern people would never submit to the degradation implied in the result of such
an election, that sectional party, bounded by a geographical line which excluded it from the possibility of obtaining a single electoral vote in the Southern States, avowing for its sentiment implacable hatred to us, and for its policy the destruction of our institutions, and appealing to Northern prejudice, Northern passion, Northern ambition and Northern hatred of us, for success, thus practically disfranchizing the whole body of the Southern people, proceeded to the nomination of a candidate for the Presidency who, though not the most conspicuous personage in its ranks, was yet the truest representative of its destructive principles.


The steps by which it proposed to effect its purposes, the ultimate extinction of slavery, and the degradation of the Southern people, are too familiar to require more than a passing allusion from me.

...

Having thus placed the institution of slavery, upon which rests not only the whole wealth of the Southern people, but their very social and political existence, under the condemnation of a government established for the common benefit, it proposed in the future, to encourage immigration into the public Territory, by giving the public land to immigrant settlers, so as, within a brief time, to bring into the Union free States enough to enable it to abolish slavery within the States themselves.


----


All emphasis by me (in all of these) and extra emphasis by me in red due to how bluntly and concisely it links slavery, the election, and secession. The second red emphasis explained how they perceived slavery's place not just in it's economic but "their very social and political existence."
 

MattLul

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
8
January 15th, 1861

Mississippi Secession Convention


http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/missconv/missconv.html
Remarks of J. W. Clapp

----
If history has taught us one truth more clearly and unmistakably than another, it is that if the institution of slavery is to be permanent, it must be controlled exclusively by the people amongst whom it exists. Foreign authority, or the power to intermeddle by a government or people not identified with the institution, is death. It was a clear perception of this truth that weighed upon the mind of the illustrious Calhoun, and it was his inability to avert the impending doom of the South in the Union, and the misconception of his motives, that ultimately crushed his proud spirit and broke his great heart.
----
 

MattLul

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
8
January 24th, 1861

Mississippi Secession Convention


http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/missconv/missconv.html
Remarks of Joel H. Berry

----
I am in favor of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Carroll, (Mr. George,) for the simple reason that it embodies the same proposition, in substance, that I had the honor to submit a few days ago. In providing means for
the defence of the State, there is no good reason why negroes should not bear as great a burthen as any other property. I do not wish my position upon this question to be misunderstood. I am utterly opposed to class legislation, or of making any discrimination against negro property, or of doing anything else that would be prejudicial to the institution of slavery. No one, sir, believes more strongly than I do in the great truth enunciated by Mr. Calhoun: that African slavery, as it exists in the South, is a blessing to both the white and black races. In no other country, nor in any other age of the world, so far as their history is known, have the African race attained so high an elevation, or enjoyed so much happiness, as they have in a state of servitude in the South. On the other hand, there is no place upon earth where the poorer classes of white people occupy so high a position as they do here, where African slavery exists. An abiding conviction of these truths upon the public mind gives to slavery its chief strength. It is this conviction that places it so high in the affections of the people. We should be careful to do nothing here that would, in the slightest degree, diminish this attachment for it. And I now ask gentlemen, in all candor, if the conviction should be forced upon the minds of the non-slaveholders of this State that negro property is not to bear as heavy a burthen in providing means for our defence, as land or other property, if it will not sow the seeds of discontent and excite a prejudice against the institution of slavery itself? I represent, sir, a constituency, a large majority of whom are non-slaveholders; and I venture to predict that should the soil of Mississippi be pressed by the footsteps of an invading foe, my constituents will be found in the front rank and in the thickest of the fight, in repelling the aggressor. But I do not ask, nor do they desire, any discrimination in their favor, or any exemption from a just and equal share of pecuniary burthens. What I ask, and what they have a right to demand, is, that every one shall be taxed according to his ability, or in proportion to what he is worth, This is in strict accordance with the good old Scriptural rule; and here permit me to remark, that as distinguished as this Convention is for talent and ability--composed, as it is, of the most distinguished men in the State, with the exception of myself, and perhaps a few others, [laughter]--they are not so highly exalted as to be above the obligations of Divine authority. The Scriptural rule alluded to, is: Let every one contribute "according to what he hath, and not according to what he hath not."

----
 

MattLul

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
8
January 16th, 1861

Mississippi Secession Convention


http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/missconv/missconv.html
Remarks of A. M. Clayton

----
We are in the midst of a great work. This movement was inaugurated to protect the institution of slavery, and to preserve it from destruction. The importance of the undertaking could not be over-estimated. The slaves of the South were about four millions in number, and about four billions of dollars in value. Their labor contributed more to the wealth, to the prosperity, the commerce and civilization of the world, than any other institution in it. And yet, by some strange solecism, the public opinion of the whole world, outside of those States and countries in which it existed, was strongly against it. Even those States which derived their chief elements of greatness from it, were loud in their condemnation of it. Was it wise or politic to do anything which would add strength to this feeling?

...

Georgia and South Carolina are to-day sending abroad commissioners to make commercial treaties with European States, and to regulate their intercourse with them. The nations of Europe are not less hostile to the institution of slavery than the North-Western States of the former Union. Almost every European nation formerly held possessions in the West Indies, in which slavery was tolerated. They have all abolished it with the exception of Spain, in Cuba and Porto Rico. But still our neighboring sisters are seeking the most intimate terms of alliance with them. Of course they do not propose to give these nations any control in their domestic affairs--any voice in the management their slave institutions. Neither would I give any such power to any of the free States, if they should ever enter into a Constitutional compact with the South. The subject of slavery should be a prohibited subject--placed above and beyond the reach of Congressional legislation. It should be secured by the strongest guarantees and provisions which could be framed.

----
 

MattLul

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
8
February 26th, 1860

Alabama Legislature


http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/smithwr/smith.html
ON the 24th day of February, 1860, the Alabama Legislature adopted the following Joint Resolutions, with great unanimity--there being but two dissenting voices

----
WHEREAS, anti-slavery agitation persistently continued in the non-slaveholding States of this Union, for more than a third of a century, marked at every stage of its progress by contempt for the obligations of law and the sanctity of compacts, evincing a deadly hostility to the rights and institutions of the Southern people, and a settled purpose to effect their overthrow even by the subversion of the Constitution, and at the hazard of violence and bloodshed; and whereas, a sectional party calling itself Republican, committed alike by its own acts and antecedents, and the public avowals and secret machinations of its leaders to the execution of these atrocious designs, has acquired the ascendency in nearly every Northern State, and hopes by success in the approaching Presidential election to seize the Government itself; and whereas, to permit such seizure by those whose unmistakable aim is to pervert its whole machinery to the destruction of a portion of its members would be an act of suicidal folly and madness, almost without a parallel in history; and whereas, the General Assembly of Alabama, representing a people loyally devoted to the Union of the Constitution, but scorning the Union which fanaticism would erect upon its ruins, deem it their solemn duty to provide in advance the means by which they may escape such peril and dishonor, and devise new securities for perpetuating the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity; therefore,

- Be it resolved, That upon the happening of the contingency contemplated in the foregoing Preamble, namely, the election of a President advocating the principles and action of the party in the Northern States calling itself the Republican Party, it shall be the duty of the Governor, and he is hereby required, forthwith to issue his Proclamation, calling upon the qualified voters of this State to assemble on Monday not more than forty days after the date of said Proclamation, at the several places of voting in their respective counties, to elect delegates to a Convention of the State, to consider, determine and do whatever in the opinion of said Convention, the rights, interests, and honor of the State of Alabama requires to be done for their protection.


...
----

Same sesion

----
Joint Resolutions of the General Assembly of Alabama in response to the Resolutions of South Carolina.

1st, Be it resolved, That the State of Alabama, fully concuring with the State of South Carolina, in affirming the right of any State to secede from the confederacy, whenever in her own judgment such a step is demanded by the honor, interests and safety of her people, is not unmindful of the fact that the assaults upon the institution of slavery, and upon the rights and equality of the Southern States, unceasingly continued with increasing violence and in new, and more alarming forms, may constrain her to a reluctant but early exercise of that invaluable right.

2d, Be it further resolved, That in the absence of any preparation for a systematic co-operation of the Southern States, in resisting the aggressions of their enemies, Alabama, acting for herself, has solemnly declared that under no circumstances will she submit to the foul domination of a sectional Northern party, has provided for the call of a Convention in the event of the triumph of such a faction in the approaching Presidential election, and to maintain the position thus deliberately assumed, has appropriated the sum of $200,000 for the military contingencies which such a course may involve.

...
----
 

MattLul

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
8
November 12th, 1860

Letter from Alabama Governor Andrew B Moore


http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/smithwr/smith.html

----
Who is Mr. Lincoln, whose election is now beyond question? He is the head of a great sectional party calling itself Republican: a party whose leading object is the destruction of the institution of slavery as it exists in the slaveholding States. Their most distinguished leaders, in and out of Congress, have publicly and boldly proclaimed this to be their intention and unalterable determination. Their newspapers are filled with similar declarations. Are they in earnest? Let their past acts speak for them.

Nearly every one of the non-slaveholding States have been for years under the control of the Black Republicans. A large majority of these States have nullified the fugitive slave law, and have successfully resisted its execution. They have enacted penal statutes, punishing, by fine and imprisonment in the penitentiary, persons who may pursue and arrest fugitive slaves in said State. They have by law, under heavy penalties, prohibited any person from aiding the owner to arrest his fugitive slave, and have denied us the use of their prisons to secure our slaves until they can be removed from the State. They have robbed the South of slaves worth millions of dollars, and have rendered utterly ineffectual the only law passed by Congress to protect this species of property. They have invaded the State of Virginia, armed her slaves with deadly weapons, murdered her citizens, and seized the United States Armory at Harper's Ferry. They have sent emissaries into the State of Texas, who burned many towns, and furnished the slaves with deadly poison for the purpose of destroying their owners.

All these things have been effected, either by the unconstitutional legislation of free States, or by combinations of individuals. These facts prove that they are not only in earnest and intent upon accomplishing their wicked purposes, but have done all that local legislation and individual efforts could effect.

Knowing that their efforts could only be partially successful without the aid of the Federal Government, they for years have struggled to get control of the Legislative and Executive Departments thereof. They have now succeeded, by large majorities, in all the non-slaveholding States except New Jersey, and perhaps California and Oregon, in electing Mr. Lincoln, who is pledged to carry out the principles of the party that elected him. The course of events show clearly that this party will, in a short time have a majority in both branches of Congress. It will then be in their power to change the complexion of the Supreme Court so as to make it harmonize with Congress and the President. When that party get possession of all the Departments of Government, with the purse and the sword, he must be blind indeed who does not see that slavery will be abolished in the District of Columbia, in the dock-yards and arsenals, and wherever the Federal Government has jurisdiction.

It will be excluded from the Territories, and other free States will in hot haste be admitted into the Union, until they have a majority to alter the Constitution. Then slavery will be abolished by law in the States, and the "irrepressible conflict" will end; for we are notified that it shall never cease, until "the foot of the slave shall cease to tread the soil of the United States." The state of society that must exist in the Southern States, with four millions of free negroes and their increase, turned loose upon them, I will not discuss--it is too horrible to contemplate.


----
 

MattLul

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
8
January 7th, 1861

Alabama Secession Convention


http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/smithwr/smith.html
Resolution offered by Mr. Whatley

----
And WHEREAS, a sectional party, known as the Black Republican Party, has, in the recent election, elected Abraham Lincoln to the office of President, and Hannibal Hamlin to the office of Vice-President of these United States, upon the avowed principle that the Constitution of the United States does not recognise properly in slaves and that the Government should prevent its extension into the common Territories of the United States, and that the power of the Government should be so exercised that slavery, in time, should be exterminated:
----
 

MattLul

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
8
January 27th, 1861
(approximate date, sometime between Jan 27th and Feb 3rd)

Alabama Secession Convention

http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/smithwr/smith.html
Mr. Yelverton

----
We know that slavery exists in Africa, and that the African slaves for labor are equal to United States slaves; that the money required to pay the United States for one will pay Africa for eight. We know that slavery is a social, moral and political blessing. We know that the Bible speaks of Slavery as an institution permitted; and that Jesus Christ, while on earth, found slavery in existence and did not condemn it, but commanded slaves to be obedient to their masters; we know that neither the Bible or the New Testament has any decrees for slavery and Slave trade in one country and against it in another. From these promises the doctrine of States Rights, and the doctrine of free trade in Slaves as property, are deducible.

Your Ordinance, by restricting the privilege of buying slaves in Africa and confining the market to the United States, seeks to prostrate at one fell blow, both these great principles; the principle of State Rights, in which all our public property centres, and the principle of Free Trade, which controls the economy, and makes or unmakes the fortunes of the people.

Slavery and Cotton go hand in hand together; they have produced wonderful results. Strike down Slavery, the subordinate, and your haughty "King Cotton," as you proudly call him--that monach who has been the great architect of our fortunes, and who has erected in our midst such a power that we have grown, in our own estimation at least, to be invincible--will dwindle into a petty tyrant, under whose embecile administration our grandeur will subside and our civilization will perish.

----
 

MattLul

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
8
Mike Griffith said:
Sigh. . . . You can repeat that myth a thousand times and it will still be a myth. Anyone who is not blinded by an emotional determination to uphold the Radical Republican version of the war will readily admit the following abundantly documented facts:

1. The Deep South seceded mainly over slavery, but the tariff was a major reason that many Southerners wanted independence.

2. The Upper South did not secede over slavery and was entirely willing to remain in the Union as long as the federal government did not invade the seceded states. In fact, as many historians have shown, Unionism was quite strong and gaining ground in the Upper South until Fort Sumter occurred.

3. Before the war, even many Radicals had no interest in trying to force the South to end slavery. They were extremely interested in keeping slavery from spreading into the territories, as were most moderate and conservative Republicans.

4. War could have been avoided if any number of perfectly doable actions had been taken, i.e., if the Republicans had not sabotaged the Crittenden Compromise, if the Republicans had not refused to adopt the Peace Convention's compromise plan, if the South had not insisted on slavery being legal in part of the territories, if Jefferson Davis had not foolishly cut off food to the Sumter garrison, if Davis had not fired on Fort Sumter in response to a harmless resupply convoy that was merely trying to deliver food to the Sumter garrison, or if Lincoln had simply evacuated Fort Sumter as he had indicated he would do.
What myth are you talking about, I'm simply documenting what secessionists said and when regarding slavery. Are you suggesting one of them said a myth?
 

MattLul

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
8
Two events on this one, by the same body, that are linked

Journal of the House of Delegates of the State of Virginia, for the Extra Session, 1861.

http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/vadel61/vadel61.html

January 19th, 1861

----
Whereas it is the deliberate opinion of the general assembly of Virginia, that unless the unhappy controversy, which now divides the states of this confederacy, shall be satisfactorily adjusted, a permanent dissolution of the Union is inevitable; and the general assembly, representing the wishes of the people of the commonwealth, is desirous of employing every reasonable means to avert so dire a calamity, and determined to make a final effort to restore the Union and the constitution, in the spirit in which they were established by the fathers of the republic: Therefore,

Resolved, that on behalf of the commonwealth of Virginia, an invitation is hereby extended to all such states, whether slaveholding or non-slaveholding, as are willing to unite with Virginia in an earnest effort to adjust the present unhappy controversies, in the spirit in which the constitution was originally formed, and consistently with its principles, so as to afford to the people of the slaveholding states adequate guarantees for the security of their rights, to appoint commissioners to meet on the 4th day of February next, in the city of Washington, similar commissioners appointed by Virginia, to consider, and if practicable, agree upon some suitable adjustment.

Resolved, that Ex-president John Tyler, William C. Rivers, Judge John W. Brockenbrough, George W. Summers and James A. Seddon, are hereby appointed commissioners, whose duty it shall be to repair to the city of Washington, on the day designated in the foregoing resolution, to meet such commissioners as may be appointed by any of the said states, in accordance with the foregoing resolution.

Resolved, that if said commissioners, after full and free conference, shall agree upon any plan of adjustment requiring amendments of the federal constitution, for the further security of the rights of the people of the slaveholding states, they be requested to communicate the proposed amendments to congress, for the purpose of having the same submitted by that body, according to the forms of the constitution, to the several states for ratification.

Resolved, that if said commissioners cannot agree on said adjustment, or if agreeing, congress shall refuse to submit for ratification such amendments as may be proposed, then the commissioners of this state shall immediately communicate the result to the executive of this commonwealth, to be by him laid before the convention of the people of Virginia and the general assembly: provided, that the said commissioners be subject at all times to the control of the general assembly, or if in session, to that of the state convention.

Resolved, that in the opinion of the general assembly of Virginia, the propositions embraced in the resolutions presented to the senate of the United States by the Hon. John J. Crittenden, so modified as that the first article proposed as an amendment to the constitution of the United States shall apply to all the territory of the United States now held or hereafter acquired south of latitude thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, and provide that slavery of the African race shall be effectually protected as property therein during the continuance of the territorial government, and the fourth article shall secure to the owners of slaves the right of transit with their slaves between and through the non-slaveholding states and territories, constitute the basis of such an adjustment of the unhappy controversy which now divides the states of this confederacy, as would be accepted by the people of this commonwealth.

Resolved, that Ex-president John Tyler is hereby appointed by the concurrent vote of each branch of the general assembly, a commissioner to the president of the United States, and Judge John Robertson is hereby appointed, by a like vote, a commissioner to the state of South Carolina, and the other states that have seceded, or shall secede, with instructions respectfully to request the president of the United States and the authorities of such states to agree to abstain, pending the proceedings contemplated by the action of this general assembly, from any and all acts calculated to produce a collision of arms between the states and the government of the United States.

Resolved, that copies of the foregoing resolutions be forthwith telegraphed to the executives of the several states, and also to the president of the United States, and that the governor be requested to inform, without delay, the commissioners of their appointment by the foregoing resolutions.

----

Votes
Ayes: 83
Noes: 4

AYES--Messrs. Crutchfield (speaker), Allen, Anderson, Arnold, Ball, Ballard, Baskervill, Bass, Bassel, Bell, Bentley, Bisbie, Burks, Caperton, Carter, Chapman, Childs, Claiborne, Coleman, Crump, Davis, Duckwall, Evans, Friend, J. T. Gibson, C. H. Gilmer, Graham, Grattan, Hanly, Huntt, Hunter, James, Jett, Johnson, C. H. Jones, W. T. Jones, Kaufman, Kemper, Kincheloe, Knotts, Kyle, Leftwich, Locke, Magruder, Mallory, J. G. Martin, W. Martin, Matthews, Maupin, McCamant, McDowell, McGruder, McKinney, Miles, J. R. Miller, Mong, Montague, Montgomery, Morgan, Nelson, Newton, Phelps, Pritchard, Robertson, Robinson, Rutherfoord, Saunders, Seddon, Shannon, Sherrard, J. K. Smith, I. N. Smith, Staples, Thomas, Tomlin, Tyler, Wallace, Ward, A. Watson, E. Watson, Welch, Wilson, Wood and Woolfolk--83.

--Messrs. Myers, Porter, Richardson and Wingfield--.

January 21st, 1861

----
Resolved by the general assembly of Virginia, that if all efforts to reconcile the unhappy differences existing between the two sections of the country, should prove to be abortive, then, in the opinion of the general assembly, every consideration of honor and interest demand that Virginia shall unite her destiny with the slaveholding states of the south.
----

unanimous vote

AYES--Messrs. Crutchfield (speaker), Alderson, Allen, Anderson, Arnold, Bailey, Ballard, Baskervill, Bass, Bassel, Bell, Bentley, Burks, Caperton, Carpenter, Carter, Cassin, Chapman, Childs, Christian, Claiborne, Coleman, Cowan, Crump, Davis, Dickenson, Duckwall, Edwards, Evans, Ferguson, Fleming, Friend, J. T. Gibson, C. H. Gilmer, Graham, Grattan, Hanly, Haymond, Huntt, Hunter, James, Jett, Johnson, C. H. Jones, W. T. Jones, Kaufman, Kee, Kemper, Kincheloe, Knotts, Kyle, Leftwich, Locke, Lockridge, Lucas, Lynn, Magruder, Mallory, W, Martin, Massie, Matthews, Maupin, McCamant, McDowell, McGruder, McKinney, McKenzie, Medley, Miles, J. R. Miller, Mong, Montague, Montgomery, Morgan, Myers, Nelson, Newton, Phelps, Preston, Pritchard, Randolph, Reid, Richardson, Robertson, Robinson, Rutherfoord, Saunders, Shannon, Sherrard, J. K. Smith, I. N. Smith, Staples, Thomas, Tomlin, Tyler, Walker, Wallace, Ward, A. Watson, E. Watson, Welch, West, Wilson, Willcox, Witten, Woolfolk and Yerby--.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
Here is a map that shows sessions throughout the south... where the votes were...

Here is a link to 32 maps that explain the civil war...https://www.vox.com/2015/4/14/8396477/maps-explain-civil-war


9) Support for secession was strongest in areas with a lot of slaves
Chris Murray
You sometimes hear arguments that the Civil War wasn’t really about slavery — that instead it was about other issues like states’ rights or excessive federal power. But if you look at which states — and which parts of states — voted for secession, it becomes hard to deny that slavery was a major factor. For example, in Tennessee, support for secession was strongest in the West, where slave ownership was most common. People in mountainous East Tennessee, where slave ownership was rare, were less enthusiastic about the idea. Similarly, slavery was relatively rare in Northern Alabama, and voters there voted against seceding. In Virginia, slave ownership was rare in the mountainous west, which opposed secession and became the separate state of West Virginia.
 
Last edited:
Top