Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

amnesty and treason

I revised the amnesty and treason section of the lede and moved it down. It does not belong in the lede. There is a large scholarly literature that i cited. the alleged quote ["condemn the North" "for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion"] from Chief Justice Chase seems to be a fake. there is no footnote to the source and it does not appear in biographies of Chase. It does appear in Lost Cause websites Rjensen (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Rjenson? I definitely agree with the removal to a different location (which was really my whole thing to begin with), but please don't start repeating your sometime/often tendency to presume to be the Grand Judge of what is or isn't a "fake." Your POV will not suffice as in standing alone. I don't mean all that in a personal way in the least..but just calling it as I see it. The three sources I cited are of reliable and respected note. Burke Davis himself is a noted historian and author of many books -- look up his credentials yourself -- and he takes the South to task on many things. The sub-sources are of reliable note, and from unquestionable scholarly and reliable content. And I am going to re-add it, although I will make a few modifications for compromise sake. And the "generous terms" are nothing but a POV on the part of the sources you cite. Hell, history is that way and we both know it (a bias in a given direction). Anyway, I hope this compromise on my part and yours will meet muster for all of us. TexasReb (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

My point was that the Chase quote is a fake. It was invented by Rutherford in 1916 or so when he misread a commentary by someone else and assumed it was written by Chase. It appears only in neo-Confed literature. The biographers of Chase say that Chase felt Jeff Davis was guilty of treason. Rjensen (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Insert Well, while I can live with the latest edit, I also want to reinterate that your POV that it was "fake" is just that. What you call "Neo-Confed" literature is simply a presentation of evidence and etc., that has been pushed out of the mainstream history for almost a century. Thank god it is coming back. Anyway, can you provide this Rutherford thing you speak of? If not, then it has no validity. And c'mon, do you honestly believe that biographers of Chase are not extremely biased themselves. Good lord, how many times can this one be argued. History is NOT an objective subject, and as one historian to another, I don't know what is the argument...? But as it is, I will not argue that Chase did not personally believe that Jefferson Davis was not guilty of treason; that is not the point at all. The point is, that he strongly advised against a trial on treason charges...knowing full well what the outcome would be, and his own fear of that same outcome. In a nutshell though, I can go along with how it is written now. I may add some additional sources, but it is not objectionable as modified. TexasReb (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

At Texas v. White the Supreme Court explained that there was no secession in the American Civil War.

The issue of treason and amnesty is explored in [http://www.amazon.com/April-1865-Month-Saved-America/dp/0060899689 April 1865: the month that saved America] (2006) by Jay Wink. A major war goal of the victors in the American Civil War, was restoration of the Union, reincorporating the former rebels as countrymen with historically generous terms, both by presidential pardon and congressional amnesty 1866-1872 as a part of Reconstruction of the states in rebellion. It was successful in that virtually all those in the Confederacy took the loyalty oath to the United States Government and returned to peaceful participation in state self government, Congressional representation and presidential elections, -- the violence of the White Leagues against state citizens of the United States notwithstanding. The general acceptance among historians of the Lost Cause and its presumption of moral equivalence aided in that reunification. Nevertheless, war was made by individuals against the lawfully constituted government of the United States.

Taking up arms against the constitutional government is making oneself a domestic enemy of the Constitution, and in the Constitution, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Furthermore, after the Civil War ended the rebels' children were immune from punishment as individuals or as enduring communities, "The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted." The clause is necessary because of Parliament's actions against rebels, their children and communities in past history. It is a shame that generosity in one generation and individual justice in later generations can be misunderstood as illegitimacy and weakness on the part of the people of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Texas vs. White decision involved bond issues, not the issue of secession itself, and did not explain anything. And it was far from a unanimous decision, in any event. It was dicta (i.e. Having no bearing on the actual issue at hand, although it may be persuasive in another realm.). And to reach the decision they did, a Lincoln packed SCOTUS had to "prove" Texas had never left the Union (and quite a few years later). Irrelevant. Here is a good site which gives another viewpoint...which makes the case. http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/on_secssion.html

No, it wasn't. That is simply your POV. And war was not launched against the United States (i.e. those northern states who kept the name only by default). To say most of mainstream history is not written by the victors is just to ignore the dynamics of history and the preponderance of all evidence. If the English had won the "American Revolution" (as we call it today), then school books and etc, would be giving their side of it as the one most read. LOL

Yes, yes, I know all about that Clause. The Confederate Constitution had the same clause. And it only applied if the said states were within the said Union. They were no longer in that Union. The Confederate States defended themselves against an unwarranted invasion on the part of the Lincoln administration to keep the South's tax money. Yes, that is MY POV, but documented in its own right. And the Southerners never gave "aid and comfort" to the enemies of the Old Union. In fact, they actively sought to make an economic and defensive alliance with the North. But were ignored. They were a sovereign nation and never had any intention of invading the Old Union. This was why Lincoln had to ingeniously contrive the incident at Ft. Sumter, as he knew northern public opinion was opposed to an invasion of the South for the dubious purpose of "preserving the Union." The prevailing sentiment was well expressed by Horace Greely as "Let the erring sisters go in peace", and Jefferson Davis in his inaugural address that implored "All the South wants is to be left alone." Horrid!. Again, the Southerners simply defended itself against an unwarranted and unconstitutional invasion, the same as any people worth their salt would have done. Arguing "from result" is not good history... TexasReb (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Note concerning the American Thinker article. George Washington Paschal was never governor of Texas, although, like Sam Houston, he was a Union supporter. See The Handbook of Texas Online. I have not checked other statements in the article but I think that a mistake of that magnitude does raise the question whether more should be checked. Donner60 (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It does indeed appear, Donner, that G.W. Paschael was never governor of Texas. I can agree with that. However, it was likely just some sort of typo, and not anything of any "magnitude" as the term would be commonly understood. It is not like there are not quite a few other legal sources on line which tell the truth about Texas v. White. And that is the important thing. To wit, the concrete fact that the case involved bond sales, much after the War was over, and opinions on the legality of secession were dicta, not a binding ruling. Just to mention as well, Gov. Houston was not pro-Union in the sense he was a northern sympathizer. This is one of the biggest misconceptions some people have. That is, that pro-Union, among Southern men, translated into favoring the north. No, Houston, simply believed that secession (as did many Southern men), would be a "rash" mistake at the time it came up. However, when it was a fact, he declared himself a citizen of the "Southern Confederacy." His own son distinguished himself in Confederate service. Here is a letter Houston wrote to a friend explaining his ultimate position (very poignant and very articulate):

http://www.nytimes.com/1861/06/02/news/gen-houston-s-position.html?pagewanted=1

The time has come when a man's section is his country. I stand by mine. All my hopes, my fortunes, my affections are centered in the South. When I see the land for whose defence my blood has been spilt, and the people whose fortunes have been mine through more than a quarter of a century of toil, threatened with invasion, I can but cast my lot with theirs, and await the issue. TexasReb (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This [1] blog entry discusses the fake quote issue in detail -- even referencing the exact sources used by Texasreb. IMO, much better sourcing is needed before this material is added back to the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Insert North Shoreman? Your bias is evident, which is fine on lots of levels. But I do notice one thing -- with all due respect -- many of your articles contain "talk" that strongly protest your lack of objectivity. It is fine if you take a pro-northern slant. No biggie...but that is all it is, your extreme TexasReb (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Houston's awaited issue was the failure of the secessionist movement in the 19th century, it is settled law in the United States. Texas v. White allows for state secession by the same process as Union. What could that mean? The people in a state may secede when a) a convention apart from the state government is called for the express purpose for secession, b) the elections are regularly held in good order in usual voting places, c) the convention votes for secession and petitions the Congress, d) Congress by two-thirds proposes the issue of the state secession to the states, e) the people of the United States in three-fourths of the states approve of the secession.

There was no secession in the American Civil War by a legitimate process, nor did any nation in the international community recognize the Confederacy as a nation. The process of the rebellion made it illegitimate, recognized to the status of a belligerent by coercion alone. U.S. citizens made war on the constitutionally elected government of the United States, they committed acts of treason, pardoned when they were acting under orders as soldiers in a generous effort at reconciliation.

The former rebels swore allegiance to the United States government and its Constitution, accepted the pardons and participated as faithful U.S. citizens just as Robert E. Lee admonished them to do, electing self-governing state governments and representatives to Congress, serving in uniform. Now comes a subsequent movement which both asserts the legitimacy of secessionist conspiracists, and denies the reconciliation, wishing to undo it. But that POV need not be admitted to an encyclopedic article on historical events. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice try, but no ceegar. To start -- how many times does it have to be said -- Texas v. White was about a bond issue. Nothing more. There has never been a direct ruling on secession as relates to the issue. But of course, if you want to invoke a case as being proof otherwise (which was quite a few years after the War ended, anyway), then you are totally grasping at straws. So any dicta parroted by Salmon Chase you present in your lecture is meaningless.

And besides, really...something like secession can never be settled by force of arms.

• yawwwwns. We are just talking past each other. This is a classic case of "arguing from result." And totally ridiculous. While I understand that you cling fanatically to a pro-Northern viewpoint? Deny it as you might, the Southern states which seceded by proper legislative means, did not wage war upon the "United States (i.e. and can't be repeated and emphasized enough, northern states which kept the name only by default). In seceding, the Southern states only wanted to sever connections with the northern states. There was absolutely no intention in the least to wage war upon them or anything at all but get along in peace and even form a mutually beneficial alliance with one another. This was not acceptable to the Lincoln administration as it would have cost them money, and revenues to subsidize their own interests.

Good gawd, do you honestly believe most northerners favored coercion? It was all about keeping the South's tax money (which amounted to about 75% of that paid in.). Please read this sometime. And I will say that reasonable men can disagree. What I have a problem with is when some just are unwilling to see the other side at all; even though I understand that they have never really heard the other side. http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/southernside.htm TexasReb (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Completely untrue. The taxes came from imports and the overwhelming majority of those came through northern ports. The 11 CSA states made up only 6.35% of those tax revenues, not 75%. This comes from perusal of the 1859 Custom's House data. http://eh.net/database/u-s-customs-house-data-1854-59/ Over 2/3 of that Southern total was from New Orleans alone! It is unfortunate that so much Lost Cause history is fabricated and repeated as if it were true. The reality is that the tariffs increased costs of goods for Southerners, Northerners, Westerners, etc. Numerically, Southerners were but a small fraction of the total. The tariff schedules also protected various Southern goods such as tobacco and sugar(increasing their costs to everyone else in the country.)

The real rub for the Deep South was that they lacked significant manufacturing capacity and this carried its own costs. However, that was a direct result of the slave based system they had adopted and nurtured. It undermined free labor and discouraged skilled workers from immigrating to Southern states. (See Dew's "Ironmaker to the Confederacy".) Southern investment/capital revolved around slave based agriculture and this made them dependent on imports from overseas and other parts of the country. This dependency included some grains and foodstuffs, because it was more economical for the plantation system to focus on high margin crops rather than food. Contrast this with Midwestern/western states that rapidly developed their own manufacturing and transportation. This was happening in the Upper South as well, where the dependence on cotton was less.

A more defensible observation is that per capita, Southerners paid a disproportionate share of the costs/impacts of the tariffs--although quantifying how much is a challenge. Considering how small the total tariff revenue was, $49 million in 1859 for a nation of roughly 30 million at the time, the economic burden cannot have been great. However, Southerners' perception of injustice at the time is another matter. Of course, there is a "chicken and the egg/cause and effect" problem in that some of the Southern complaints about it were justifications for other political/economic aims rather than serious problems in their own right. When the complaints of the secession conventions are examined (including those that failed to give consent), the weakness of the tariff argument for secession becomes apparent. Red Harvest (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Not quite so deflective and simple, RH. It is true that most of the federal revenues were spend on defense, but such only tells part of the story. That is to say, of that spent domestically? Well, the vast majority (due to the North's control of the House of Representatives where budget bills originate), of those monies were spent on canals, roads, railrods, etc, in the North which greatly benefited northern industry and interests. Here is a good link which outlines it all completely:

http://universalmediainc.org/pdf/Un-Civil%20War%20Shattering%20Chapter.pdf

I realize the source is biased (just as we are! LOL), but the figures are based on solid sources, including official government figures of the era. TexasReb (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That isn't a coherent argument. You claimed "It was all about the South's tax money (which amounted to about 75% of that paid in)" which is a demonstrated misrepresentation of large proportions. So you switch back to Federal expenditures (without providing an analysis of the breakdown) and the Morrill Tariff which became law in 1861 AFTER secession, as a result of Southern senators withdrawing. And that 2nd article makes the false claim that "87% of the total even before the Morrill Tariff" fell on the South. We've already reviewed that fallacy, so why repeat a falsehood and even expand on it? From what I glean of the author's bio he is not an historian (has been a political party chairman though and writes articles for Lew Rockwell) and his work lacks footnotes. Again, not a credible or verifiable source. You seem to have the mistaken impression that you are educating those of us already informed on the historical issues, when instead you are misinforming by providing incomplete summaries from willfully misleading and, by your own admission, biased sources. How exactly is that helpful? Red Harvest (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to give it up, RedH. And not the least of reasons being that you don't even recognize that history is not an objective subject. Until you can grasp that simple fact, then you are just ranting and very much out of your league. For example, I totally disagree with Virginia Historian and Rjensens viewpoint and all, but I can respect them for at least arguing like men, and tacitly agreeing that history is indeed a biased subject. With you however, you seem to not understand the concept in the least. Instead, you cling to the fanciful notion that the northern viewpoint -- simply by some sort of social osmosis, perhaps...? -- is the gospel truth, and that anything which goes against it must automatically be a falsehood. Sorry, no disrespect intended, but your approach reminds quite a bit of some college undergrad or an ivory-towered academician who is not used to being disagreed with. If I may ask, are you either one...? By the way who, exactly, do you mean by "those of us" as in what bunch are you presuming to be the spokesperson of...? And by the way as well? If you had read the article carefully, it would have answered every question you raise and, further, exact figures, and what disproportionate taxes really meant. TexasReb (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Give up responding to you? Perhaps, since you don't seem to understand the purpose of the talk page or how to evaluate sources. When it comes to history I prefer to consult verifiable timelines and events where available. Since you asked and missed by a mile: engineering is my discipline, career mostly in Texas where coworkers commented that I don't suffer fools gladly. I'm a border state person with an Ozark farm background who considers "yankee" derogatory/misapplied except for Northeasterners who proudly wear the moniker. Rather than taking a "northern viewpoint" most of what I read comes directly from Southerners before and during the war. I'm sorry if their POV in that time frame offends you. It would be entertaining to watch you go back to 1861 and argue with them about what they were doing, alas, we can't do that. Red Harvest (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you for real? But I just gotta add that you sure do seem to have an inflated opinion of yourself. For example, that remark you made about co-workers (so you say) seemingly are in awe of you as you "do not suffer fools gladly". ROFLMAO. Is that supposed to intimidate me or something? If so, you really do have delusions of grandeur. Wonderful you are an engineer (so was Robert E. Lee). Wellll, I am a teacher and a notary public, so what does that make me? But once again, to patiently explain to an "engineer", you still consistently seem to miss the concrete fact that history is not an objective subject. Further, that I really don't have a problem with those who take a pro-Union take on it all. Serious historians (professional or laymen) can take the same facts and form different conclusions. You seem to be incapable of grasping this. You seem to have a supercilious attitude that has no grounded reasons at all.

So ok, you say you formed a lot of your opinions from Southern viewpoints (why in the world do think would offend me?). As it is, I formed most of my opinions by reading the mainstream northern slant which attempted to use slavery as moral cover...and came to the honest conclusion that the South had the best constitutional arguments on its side. Here (again) is a good one. I don't expect that you will take it seriously but, in totality, it is not really you I am trying to get to see the other side, but those who are "on the fence", as it is: http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/southernside.htm TexasReb (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You asked for some personal information, I reluctantly provided it...which of course has led to only more uncivil behavior and insults from you. I wish you would take some care in the formatting of your responses, as you have made a mess of the talk page. As it is, there is no point in engaging in any discussion with you. You have admitted above that your intention here is to push POV. The talk page is not a personal political forum, and I'm not here to trade insults with you. Red Harvest (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Nor I with you (in terms of insults). I don't want that at all, and if you see it that way, I respectfully advance that you may be overly sensitive. Regardless, you are totally wrong in your understanding of what I mean by POV. What I meant was -- for the umpteenth time -- is that POV is really what history is all about, as in there is no such critter as objective when it comes to interpretation. It may be interesting to share (and it is as in sharing viewpoints). The problem comes in when that (ironically) fact, is not grasped nor understood. And yeah, sometimes I don't think you really get that. I have no problem at all with your pro-Union viewpoint; only when you try and present it in a way that simply dismisses other viewpoints as false by default. So please, if we are to have a civil discussion, don't presume to give me a lecture on the matter and what the talk page is all about. If anything, you are the one getting huffy and overbearing, and revising the main page to do so... TexasReb (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I respect you, VH, as a man who has quite a bit of historical knowledge; I always enjoy talking with a worthy opponent. BUT your premise is as faulty as it is totally POV. Fine, far as tht goes, but your example of what Lee urged later has nothing to do with what transpired before the War itself. It is simply groundless that secession, during the day, was anything at all that many people, South and North, did not consider outlandish. As it was, not only did the Upper South states join the original Confederacy, but they did so because they had very deep-seated (rightfully), objections to using the force of the federal government to coerce a state.

And heck, it defies all historical logic that the sovereign states (recognized as such by the Treaty of Paris) would have entered into a Union -- after having just "seceded" from England -- that they knew they could never get out of. The principle that "Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed" is not in the least ambiguous. Secession may well have been rash, foolhardy, and stupid, but it was not unconstitutional; winners history doesn't make it different (knowing of course, that the American Revolution experience is a very inconvenient fact for northern apologists. LOL)

Might doesn't make right, and Jefferson Davis said it very well, when he wrote: "The principle for which we content is bound to reassert itself, even if in another time and another form." Or Alexander Stephens, along the lines of: If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity. TexasReb (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Texasreb: Please do not break up my post, it is not the convention at Wikipedia. Please do not alter my posts using bold or other conventions. Use paragraphs in your own post, I have numbered by paragraphs for reference. Please sign your posts. I am happy to entertain a sustained discussion with you.

1. It seems you are overlooking three phases of early American history. First, the Revolutionary Congress, where the people in mass meetings and conventions instructed their representatives in Congress with national war and peace making and power to incur indebtedness. Second, the Articles Congress, where the states entered into a perpetual Union as a Confederation. —This where you seem to be hung up, but there is more to the story. The Articles of Confederation was unsatisfactory, so the people peaceably overthrew it by constitutional process approved by Congress, and the Articles Congress resolved itself out of existence, to be replaced by the Constitutional Congress.

Third, the Constitutional Congress, where the people in state conventions ratified a more perfect Union than the earlier perpetual union of the states. The Treaty of Paris did not create the United States, its sovereign was not King George or his treaty signatories. The people in the states making a new nation created the United States. The states were not sovereign, the sovereign is the one people dissolving the political bands with Great Britain, living as thirteen colonies until their independence in one nation.

2. To argue the Treaty of Paris made independence is to argue from result, versus legitimacy of the sovereign people of a nation. Secession is legitimate only if the nation approves it by Constitutional means, rebel assertion by force of arms is illegitimate. You may recall Jefferson Davis called up 100,000 militia for rebellion, then Lincoln called up 75,000 to restore federal property. Lincoln let go forts, armories, gold stocks at treasury mints, withdrew federal judges and federal marshals, preferring to await calmer heads to prevail in subsequent southern elections. But he was bound by law to collect tariffs at ports, the lowest tariffs of the decade prior.

3. Your website makes a great deal of John Calhoun’s analysis, it was dated by a decade. The problem in the Southern cotton economy of 1860 was rising competition from Egypt and India, not the ever decreasing tariffs protecting Northern industry.

4. Most northerners favored coercion to sustain the Union, they flocked to the colors with the same enthusiasm as southerners to the secessionist banners, all was not Wall Street. And the North voted to sustain war through midterm elections in 1862, and the presidential election in 1864. Jefferson Davis dared no such reliance on the people, see Martis [http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Congresses-Confederate-America-1861-1865/dp/0133891151 The Historical Atlas of the Congresses of the Confederacy of America]for an analysis of the non-elected governor appointees making up the pro-Davis administration majority in the Confederate Congress.

5. Alexander Stephens quotes referring to “common ancestors”, meaning Angles and Saxons in England before the Norman Conquest of Great Britain. But he is not an authority concerning the Constitution of 1789. At a time when “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was the best seller in the North, Sir Walter Scott’s “Ivanhoe” set in 12th century England was the best seller in the South. The romance of the pre-Norman times was fantasy, the centralism that Stephens objected to had already prevailed in England and Great Britain by 1860. How is that relevant here? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

For some reason, VH and Red Harvest, my response to both of y'alls posts and points did not come thru. But I am not ignoring them. I am just too damn tired to re-type them. LOL But will do so (absolutely guaranteed!), in the next day or so. I welcome the opportunity! And BTW -- VH? I apologize for "breaking up" your post. I should not have done it like I did. However, I definitely -- again -- plan to counter. TexasReb (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you do respond, I hope that it is using accurate and better researched resources than I've seen you use here so far. It would probably be best to discuss particular changes that should be made to the article rather than treating this as a discussion forum. Relying primarily on sources that are defining themselves as representing a POV (in other words trying to make a case for one side rather than balance and weigh the issues) is not helpful. And while I didn't mention it in my original comment, your assertion "There was absolutely no intention in the least to wage war upon them or anything at all but get along in peace and even form a mutually beneficial alliance with one another" is at odds with the nature of the dispute and history before and during the war. Southerners had been actively filibustering and seeking to expand slavery. They attempted to do this in the 1850's by brute force (even raiding the Federal depot at Liberty, MO) and by organizing massive fraud at the polls in Kansas. The secession crisis itself arose from Southern anger at Lincoln's insistence that slavery would not be allowed in the territories. The Southern aim was the expansion of slavery, not peaceful coexistence and cooperation with neighbors who opposed its spread. There was considerable Southern expression (before shooting began) of trying to destroy New England's industry by denying them cotton for their mills. While you are welcome to your beliefs, they don't appear to be supported by historical events. Red Harvest (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but your attempt to make slavery a primary issue does not work, and is false and silly...even though it does fit the contrived viewpoint of northern apologists who want to smugly ignore the other side. Now, the "northern side" has a distinct advantage as in the winners write the mainstream history, which is generally the one that finds it way into mainstream history/text books. The advantage the Southern side has is that the said northern apologists are not very adept at dealing with it. And many (such as you) react hysterically and attempt to use slavery as a self-righteous moral cover for what was actually an unjustified invasion of the lower Southern states to keep their cash cow. (and your lame attempt at irony and sarcasm is sophomoric to the nth degree. LOL)

But ok, lets take slavery. No one ever said slavery (at least I didn't) that it wasn't a major issue in its own right. In fact, I agree that slavery in the territories were the "flash point" so to speak. However, it was not out of any altruistic concern for blacks; it was because the northern interests and northerners in general did not want blacks in the said territories. Consider this direct quote by Lincoln, which totally destroys your assertion that Lincoln had a concern about blacks (he favored sending them all back to Africa):

The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Real moral high ground, huh? LOL

And while you are at it? Consider that of the 11 undeniable Confederate states, that only four mentioned slavery as a direct cause of secession...and all of those, other causes were mentioned and all bound up on the fact that the north was just using the South as their treasury. And was the source of the slave trade itself (not a single slave-ship was ever chartered out of a Southern port. So read this -- and the sublinks -- and weep (in poker parlance! LOL)

Sorry, but your attempt to make slavery a primary issue does not work, and is false and silly...even though it does fit the contrived viewpoint of northern apologists who want to smugly ignore the other side. Now, the "northern side" has a distinct advantage as in the winners write the mainstream history, which is generally the one that finds it way into mainstream history/text books. The advantage the Southern side has is that the said northern apologists are not very adept at dealing with it. And many (such as you) react hysterically and attempt to use slavery as a self-righteous moral cover for what was actually an unjustified invasion of the lower Southern states to keep their cash cow. (and your lame attempt at irony and sarcasm is sophomoric to the nth degree. LOL)

And peaceful coexistence was exactly what the South wanted. Jefferson Davis said it in his inaugural address and it was CSA policy to seek it the whole time, and was plainly stated time after time after time. Read it...or better yet, I will furnish the link and a quote from it: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csainau.asp

The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the United States, and which has been solemnly affirmed and reaffirmed in the Bills of Rights of the States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognizes in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. Thus the sovereign States here represented have proceeded to form this Confederacy; and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution. They formed a new alliance, but within each State its government has remained; so that the rights of person and property have not been disturbed. The agent through which they communicated with foreign nations is changed, but this does not necessarily interrupt their international relations. Sustained by the consciousness that the transition from the former Union to the present Confederacy has not proceeded from a disregard on our part of just obligations, or any, failure to perform every constitutional duty, moved by no interest or passion to invade the rights of others, anxious to cultivate peace and commerce with all nations, if we may not hope to avoid war, we may at least expect that posterity will acquit us of having needlessly engaged in it. Doubly justified by the absence of wrong on our part, and by wanton aggression on the part of others, there can be no cause to doubt that the courage and patriotism of the people of the Confederate States will be found equal to any measure of defense which their honor and security may require. An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of commodities required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest and that of all those to whom we would sell, and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of these commodities. There can, however, be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union. It must follow, therefore, that mutual interest will invite to good will and kind offices on both parts. If, however, passion or lust of dominion should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of those States, we must prepare to meet the emergency and maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position which we have assumed among the nations of the earth.

I am sorry if this messes up your idealistic vision that the North was on some righteous crusade (wellll, actually I am not, but it gives me quite a bit of pure pleasure to say so!!). TexasReb (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggested reading: Gallagher, Gary W., and Alan T. Nolan, eds. The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2000. ISBN 978-0-253-33822-8 and Davis, William C. The Cause Lost: Myths and Realities of the Confederacy. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0-7006-1254-3. Note that Davis is a professor at Virginia Tech, former editor of Civil War Times Illustrated and the only three-time winner of the Jefferson Davis Prize for Confederate history, according to his Wikipedia article. Donner60 (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

And? Do you not think these cannot be matched with opposing viewpoints? Actually, I always enjoy reading the other side (know thine enemy, as they say). Unfortunately, most of those on the said other side do not bother to do the opposite! Here is a good one: http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/southernside.htm TexasReb (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Viewpoints, yes, facts from the time of secession, no. By the way, I am in agreement with this quote from the end of the article: "I also agree with James Webb, who served as Secretary of the Navy and Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan: . . . to tar the sacrifices of the Confederate soldier as simple acts of racism, and reduce the battle flag under which he fought to nothing more than the symbol of a racist heritage, is one of the great blasphemies of our modern age. (Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America, New York: Broadway Books, 2004, p. 225)." That doesn't mean we need to, or should, accept invalid and unnecessary after-the-fact rationalizations for the actions of the political leadership, not supported by reliable and reputable scholarship, to boost our respect for the Confederate soldier and his accomplishments. Donner60 (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no rationalization about it, Donner (although I appreciate part of you commentary), but the question also stands to be asked -- by the same standard -- what was the average Union soldier fighting for? As I see it, the northern farm boy was duped into fighting a war that was really nothing more than a desire to keep the South's tax money. They were brave soldiers and far be it from me to say in the least, otherwise.

No, that Griffith piece is self-proclaimed POV/spin, not a "good one" and is therefore useless for encyclopedic entries. If you want someone to take you seriously, find a credible source. Griffith starts out with blatant lies in his first paragraph and doesn't get any better: "It has been said that history is written by the victors. This is especially true when it comes to the Civil War." The EXACT opposite is true. Southern authors have been incredibly prolific and did a masterful job of recasting their cause to one of "States Rights" in the post war era--in direct contrast to the record leading up to and during the war. For Griffith to make such a demonstrably false claim in the lede of an article is absurd. But again, this isn't a debating page over personal views, it is intended to be used for discussion of edits/format of the wiki article. Try treating it as such. Red Harvest (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you really this lame with your replies??? It is almost comical. Hell, anyone can call another's sources "revisionist" -- but it only works if the other side can present their own unbiased sources...and they do not exist. See earlier reply. I am really sorry that you are getting all bent out of shape by your failure to not understand the dynamics of history as in that it is written by biased people who are naturally going to see it from their own unique history and culture and perspective. But yes, there have been many articles/books written by those who take a pro-South view. BUT...those are not the ones that are mainstream nor in textbooks. If you don't know this, then you are naïve as all get out. This is what I meant sometime earlier by, can you just imagine what mainstream books would be saying if the English had won the American Revolution? Bottom line is -- in my opinion -- you just can't handle anything that goes against your cloistered historical vision that the North was on a righteous crusade (even though the slave trade was firmly in their hands), to preserve the Union and free the slaves out of altruistic concerns. TexasReb (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Both you and Griffith acknowledged the blatant POV of his piece. It's intent is to spin a story, rather than give a complete and accurate picture--there is zero attempt at objectivity in it. Go argue with yourself over your calling your own cite biased. Leave the rest of us out of it. Ironically, you are scolding me for agreeing with you about its lack of objectivity, and I pointed out some things you were missing. As for what is in text books/taught in schools: I grew up hearing the "states rights" BS in school. It wasn't until a decade or so later that I started reading more history on my own on the subject that I realized I had been fed a pile of Lost Cause nonsense. So yes, I'm well aware of the post-war revisionist spin that the Lost Causers successfully engaged in...and still are today. BTW, what does the Africa-to-America slave trade have to do with the ACW? It ended long before the ACW. Were Union men clamoring to import more slaves? Please tell us about this and give us cites. The slave trade as of the ACW was nearly wholly Southern and within the country. Red Harvest (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Virginia Historian? I gotta get to work now, so didn't have time to reply to your missive. Will do so tomorrow and all! TexasReb (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Virgina? Here is my reply to your first original, in "numerical sequence" (I will have to respond to the second tomorrow...as I am hungry and tired and have limited time! LOL)

1. No, nothing hung up on about it at all. The Confederate States Constitution contained -- in its preamble -- an even stronger wording than either the AOC or that of the original Union. The former spoke of a desire for a "permanent federal government". The point is that any free republic nation formed is going to be hoped to be permanent (else it would never be created at all). But it doesn't mean that the sovereign states which formed it do not have the rights of the same sovereign states to withdraw those powers delegated to the central government, if conditions warrant such. James Madison said this...and he was no fan at all of secession without cause...

2. No, the Treaty of Paris did not create the United States (which was for many years referred to as "These united states". And this one of yours is most baffling of all. That is, the St. Lincoln argument that the states did not exist as sovereign entities before the original Union existed. I don't understand you in the least on this one, VH. It is, with all due respect, ridiculous. I think you might agree with me that Madison was the primary "Father of the Constitution" and his outlook was as follows:

Give me leave to say something of the nature of the government. Who are the parties to it? The people--not the people as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties. It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several States, who were parties to it; and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. (Letter from James Madison to Daniel Webster, March 15, 1833)

LOL I think the numerical order got out of order, but I am sure it can be followed. In any event, nothing about the Treaty of Paris is "arguing from result" in the sense it is remotely comparable to what I have said earlier as concerns the "Civil War". I am arguing historical fact as to what Jefferson states in the DOI and what the Treaty of Paris recognized as individual sovereign states. On the other hand it is you are arguing from result by the fact the Confederacy was defeated, and therefore never officially recognized. And the even more shaky position that a three year after the fact SCOTUS decision (which did not address secession at all as the prime issue) has any standing. Also, your counterpoint about Lincoln and Davis as per calling out troops is also arguing from result. It is totally dependent -- again -- that the Confederate experience failed. But that does not in the least translate into that secession was not done peacefully and with a hope for peaceful coexistence. The original Confederate states fired upon Ft. Sumter because it was -- as they saw it -- a fort in their territorial waters occupied by armed troops of a foreign nation which had repulsed every single opportunity to settle the matter peacefully. Do you think the colonial "rebels" during the American Revolution would have allowed British troops to stay in the Boston harbor...or Charleston? Surely even you can't disagree with that.

But what I really find totally unfathomable is that northern apologists treat what the Colonials did in fighting their revolution as any different from what the Southerners did. Wellll, ok, I do agree there is a difference. To wit: Two in fact. The first is that the colonials won what we call the American Revolution and, by extension, the right to write the mainstream history. If the British had won, then we would be reading how proper it was that King George III thrashed a bunch of rebels who dumped perfectly good tea into the Boston Harbor, and justly hanged their leaders as traitors. LOL

Now, the second doesn't bode so well as the colonials were British citizens, totally under the rule of the Crown and never promised any representation in Parliament. This was understood aforehand and they knew full well the rope awaited them had they failed in their revolution. Of course, as an American I am proud they rose up and threw off the yoke (interesting to note that the most support for the revolution came from the Southern colonies). But just saying.

Of course -- to repeat -- the uncomfortable fact for some is that the Treaty of Paris (where the British surrendered)recognized the 13 colonies individually as being separate and sovereign states, with all the rights therein. Those states banded together into a Union (or Confederacy) of their own -- of the "compact" sort -- delegating only specified and limited powers to the central government. The rest belonged to the states as was clearly stated by the 10th amendment.

Later, 11 Southern states resumed the delegated powers and peaceably seceded to form a Confederacy of their own, as justified by one of the two conditions James Madison (Father of the Constitution) One of which is: "An abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it."

Of course, at this point (as evident by some of the posts on this thread), the northern apologists will deflect by saying the Southern states were just pissed off because Lincoln won the election and/or the only thing they wanted to protect was slavery. Nice try (to quote another fellow), but as it was, the Southern states made up 25% of the population of the country, yet were paying some 75% of the taxes. They had for years been used as the "cash cow" by the northern merchant class, which controlled the new Republican party and Lincoln. As John Reagan of Texas put it:

"You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers for northern capitalists." So bottom line is, what constitutes an "abuse of the compact" is subject to conditions and considerations of the day and age itself, not the self-righteous judgment of future generations using contemporary standards.

4. (I think! LOL). Of COURSE Stephens meant those of western and northern European decent, as a general rule. What about it? And what is your point at all? But where in the world do you come by the notion that his grasp and understanding of the constitutional history of the Union was inferior to other thinkers of his day? Can you name another that eclipsed him?

And what in the world does your example of best selling books have to do with the dangers of centralism? Matter of fact, you bring up England. Welllll, today there are other European countries are being swallowed up into a the worst type of centralism, the EU. And it really doesn't appear that it is embraced. Centralism never is...as it involves the absolute antithesis of classic notions of real freedom..

Anyway, I am not working today, but going fishing...so will reply to your later (below) post this evening or tomorrow! Have a good one! TexasReb (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Insert. Our facts are not matching up. The lead in independence were Massachusetts and Virginia. Middle colonies and southern were harder cases. A couple other items, some addressed in my item 6-8 post, some too lengthy to re-address here.

• Our timelines are not matching up. The governments formed by the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of 1789 had been formed by constitutional processes authorized by Congress, the national legislature. The Confederacy did not follow such a process, its attempt alone would not to be peaceable among the states of the nation. I would offer this observation as an addition to the article, but I need to source it first.

Although it achieved belligerent status by coercion, the Confederacy gained no international recognition because it was internationally illegitimate, and then it failed. You just supposed I argued it failed, therefore it got no international recognition. I’m trying to be more careful than that. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

So much is covered so quickly and at such length. I continue my numbering sequence. The #8 is a suggestion for an addition to the article.

6. Much of the confusion on the part of the rebels was a constant referral to the "sovereignty of states" when the sovereignty is in the people of the nation, all of it, though they live in states, and have local self-government in states. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions asserted the state's right to protect the individual citizen's right to publish criticism of the U.S. government within that state, where the Sedition Acts allowed the Adams administration to jail publishers and editors of critical newspapers. No such fundamental personal right within any state was at issue in 1860. Slavery was secure in every slave-holding state.

7. The expansion of slavery seemed to be everything to the secessionists. Then there were charges that one day there might be a majority in the nation to abolish slavery, but that is often overlooked in the narrative except to excoriate the Abolitionist fringe, since that likelihood was so remote, and indeed without the loss of life in such horrendous numbers, abolition of slavery likely would not have passed either 2/3 Congress nor if then, 3/4 states, in part due to the countervailing racial prejudice in the North noted by TexasReb. Part of the motivation for abolition was to take away the source of secessionists wealth.

• 8. Actually, the Confederate Congress responding to a call from Jefferson Davis, did declare war on all the northern states in April-May 1861. A quick online search gives us New York Times online -- but war was not declared on slaveholding Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware, who were invited to join the Confederacy, hence the "War Between the States". I think this should be included in the article, I'm looking for a better source.

9. You may recall Jefferson Davis calls up 100,000 militia for rebellion, and Abraham Lincoln, in response after withdrawing federal judges and marshals to avoid confrontation, calls up 75,000 for defense of federal property, the property having been ceded by state legislatures and accepted by Congress. Now, were those contracts to be lawfully annulled, there would have to be concurrent agreement between both parties in how to do it. But no peaceable tender was offered, only force of arms by rebels under the direction of Jefferson Davis at Fort Sumter and elsewhere.

10. The people of the United States chose to support the majority in ballots for Congress and Lincoln with the majority on the battlefield, a war sustained through 1862 mid term elections and 1864 presidential re-election, the first two-term presidency since Andrew Jackson, another unlikely development without the war. Their motives must be looked for in what they said to each other in public and private correspondence, -- just as I insist that attention be paid to the correspondence of rebel soldiers who were not secessionists per se, but joined to throw out the "invader". For the North, it was to preserve the republic, not for some economic or commercial purpose. As the war dragged on, Lincoln repeatedly proposed compensated emancipation, and secured it for DC. No Northerners sent their sons to die for cotton supply to New England mills. But Southerners said they sent sons to die for their "way of life" meaning a way of life with slavery, not one without it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

VH? I failed to reply to the latest "numbered" post, as I was engaged in addressing another poster. Caught a lot of fish and going again today, so when I return, I will reply. Meantime, here is a good site and commentary I hope you and others might read as concerns the issue of secession as goes with Texas v. White: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/

TexasReb (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Florida secession convention

For understanding what the participants of the day thought were their reasons for seceding or not, there is little better than their own conventions on the matter. While not all slave states held them, several did. The journals and resolutions were typically published and many can be found online. I've already linked to AR and MO, here is FL. https://archive.org/details/journalofproceed00flor Since their ordinance says nothing about causes, editors here might want to read the opening statements...summarized by the Chair as: "The rapid spread of Northern fanaticism has endangered our liberties and institutions, and the election of Abraham Lincoln, a wily abolitionist, to the Presidency of the United States, destroys all hope for the future." When the president of the convention was elected he had this to say: "In the formation of the Government of our Fathers, the Constitution of 1787, the institution of domestic slavery is recognized, and the right of property in slaves is expressly guaranteed.

The People of a portion of the States who were parties to the Government were early opposed to the institution. The feeling of opposition to it has been cherished, and fostered, and inflamed until it has taken possession of the public mind of the North to such an extent that it overwhelms every other influence. It has seized the political power and now threatens annihilation to slavery thoughout the Union.

At the South, and with our People of course, slavery is the element of all value, and a destruction of that destroys all that is property.

This party, now soon to take possession of the powers of the Government, is sectional, irresponsible to us, and driven on by an infuriated fanatical madness that defies all opposition, must inevitably destroy every vestige or right growing out of property in slaves.

Gentlemen, the State of Florida is now a member of the Union under the power of the Government, so to go into the hands of this party.

As we stand our doom is decreed." Red Harvest (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Good job. Later the convention would ratify a resolution that stated:

Whereas, 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 of the Free States; therefore

Be it Resolved, by the people of Florida, in Convention assembled, That it is undoubtedly the right of the several States of the Union to withdraw from the said Union at such time and for such cause as in the opinion of the people of each State, acting in their sovereign capacity, may be just and proper; and, in the opinion of this Convention, the existing causes are such as to compel Florida to proceed to exercise that right.

This passed by 62-5 -- see http://www.nytimes.com/1861/01/09/news/the-florida-convention-preliminary-steps-towards-secession.html as well as pages 13 and 18 in the convention journal. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Of note is that a text search made from the sites crude OCR text does not turn up the word "tariff" anywhere. "Duties" does show up in regards to office holder oaths and obligations, and in a single instance it shows up in the 2nd Ordinance "until otherwise provided by the General Assembly of the State of Florida, no duties shall be collected upon imports from the States forming the late Federal Union, nor upon the tonnage of vessels, owned in whole or in part by the citizens of said States, nor shall any act of Congress regulating foreign commerce, or prescribing forms to be observed by foreign vessels, be held or deemed applicable to said State." This doesn't appear in anyway to be a statement of cause, but like most of the other twenty ordinances which follow, it is a realignment of the state both for independent operation and for a "Convention of slaveholding States". This latter declared in Ordinance #22, and interestingly absolutely no provision is made for the possibility of any non-slaveholding state joining said convention. (See pp. 99-109 for these.)

If this secession thing wasn't about slavery, they did a marvelous job of making it appear that it was while hiding their true motives. So, we can check off Florida as yet another example of a secession convention dedicated to the preservation of slavery. We are now at 6 of 7 for the Deep South states, time to see if I can find LA's journal for the convention...might not be available, took them over a century to release the conventions election returns. Not that there was much doubt/alternative, as the governor had seized the Federal arsenal and forts before the convention vote. Red Harvest (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Just came across this, Florida did plan a declaration of causes, but the committee was discharged on March 1, before it was completed. For the draft see: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/florida-dec.htm and with respect to the convention is at: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/florida-dec-details.htm While the rambling draft is centered mostly on slavery issues and the expansion of it into the territories, it also mentioned "duties on importations" (tariffs) claiming a disproportionate share paid by the South because of the resulting higher prices of Northern goods, etc. Red Harvest (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added these two links about the intent to make a declaration to the paragraph containing Florida. There are a number of other links to the story itself on the web since the discovery was made by Dr. Dwight Pitcaithley, former chief historian of the National Park Service. Red Harvest (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Alabama's Ordinance references to slavery

The current wording in the article is: "The other three states of the Lower South did not issue separate "Declarations of Causes" in their secession ordinances, and of those three, only Alabama made indirect reference to slavery as being a reason for its decision." This appears a rather misleading summary of Alabama's Ordinance.

Examples from the Ordinance that is cited: "WHEREAS, 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" While not saying "slavery" outright, that is a direct reference to the institution, but perhaps not only the institution of slavery since the object is plural. it isn't clear that it is simply a euphemism either because the Ordinance continues: "And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as a permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,

Be it resolved by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled , That the people of the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri, be and are hereby invited to meet the people of the State of Alabama, by their Delegates, in Convention, on the fourth day of February, A. D., 1861, at the city of Montgomery, in the State of Alabama, for the purpose of consulting with each other as to the most effectual mode of securing concerted and harmonious action in whatever measures may be deemed most desirable for our common peace and security."

This not only directly mentions slavery, "slaveholding States of the South," but invites all of them and only them to convention. If "domestic institutions" was used euphemistically to avoid saying "slavery," then why say "slaveholding States" rather than just "States of the South" or simply list the intended states as they did anyway? Red Harvest (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of brevity in the article I removed the word "indirect." Otherwise a fuller quoting of the state's secession ordinance would be required (as illustrated above.) Red Harvest (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You miss the point, RH. The kinship with the "slaveholding states" are simply a truism which deflects from the main point. Delaware and Maryland were also slave holding states. But to the point, slavery itself was not listed directly as the reason for Alabama's secession. And your question really as to why not do this or that is of absolutely no relevance at all. Virginia (an Upper South state which had voted down secession earlier) also listed a "kinship" with the slave-holding Lower South states...but not in the sense of slavery itself being a reason for their secession. No, it was objection to Lincoln's unjustified plans to invade the Lower South states and they had to make make a decision, either/or, so to speak. TexasReb (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it is exactly that "truism" that is the issue: is slavery mentioned as a cause/the cause in the Ordinances of secession? The answer without any doubt among reasonable people would be "yes" in the case of Alabama. Red Harvest (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That has nothing at all to do at all with that slavery was not listed directly as a cause. The phrase "domestic institutions" cannot be manipulated/stretched into being such. Which is why it is listed as being "indirectly" referred to as a cause. In total contrast to the four other Lower South states that did. Also, your wording is totally out -- in terms of syntax -- in writing harmony with what was previously presented. Go back and read it and see for yourself. By the way? Any further attempts to add/delete, are going to result in an elimination of the extended quotations from the Texas declaration of causes. Or else an addition of those clear justifications, having nothing to do with slavery, of those of the other Lower and Upper South states which did not bring it up as a compelling reason. I cannot figure out in the least why you cannot make the obvious distinction that slavery directly mentioned is not the same as indirect. Although, on another level, I understand that you cannot tolerate certain simple truths of history as per words presented. TexasReb (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The "Causes of Secession" section has several extended quotes which do not seem to be in an encyclopedic style. Shouldn't they be summarized into a narrative? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and two of them (which I hope you are fairly referring to), are those which make a lengthy issue out of Texas' direct reference to slavery, and the overt way it is done, is quite telling. I have let them remain for the time being, but why is this one being given so much attention, yet those states (which were most of them), are objected to when they do not mention slavery at all? Historical insecurity on the part of some, perhaps...? I love to debate with worthy opponents, and am capable of making compromises, but it is not a one-way street and I will not permit it to be as I have my limits (by the way, VH, you are one of several I consider a worthy opponent, even if we disagree..) TexasReb (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks as if the only solution is to add the quotes so that the readers can conclude for themselves. Red Harvest (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree -- and have said so before -- but it might benefit your assertions to really get a grip on this fact, yourself TexasReb (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. When disputes like this arise, it is often best to let the primary documents do the talking. It is interesting that 5 of the 7 states that seceded before shots were fired attributed secession to disagreement over slavery. The remaining 2 didn't bother to give any reason. A few years ago I read through various records of secession conventions/resolutions for the other states during a similar discussion. These were most enlightening for the slave states that held conventions, but had not seceded by the time of Sumter. In all that I and others found, slavery was the primary consideration and various wording about it was present in their resolutions. It would take some time to dig these up, but several are available. Things change after Sumter, when it becomes a matter of "coercion" of their former fellow slave states.

As has been repeatedly said, only four mentioned slavery as a primary cause...and in all those, the institution was wrapped up in other considerations which dated back the original formation of the Union and involved the said issues.

Here is a link http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=124:alabama-resolutions-on-how-to-avoid-secession-by-safeguarding-slavery-&catid=40:secession to one of these "Passed by the Convention of the People of Arkansas, on the 20th day of March, 1861". It starts with "1. The people of the Northern States have organized a poli­tical party, purely sectional in its character, the central and controlling idea of which is hostility to the institution of African slavery, as it exists in the Southern States..." Slave or slavery is stated 28 times in the resolutions. Red Harvest (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

What about it? The secession declaration of Arkansas did not list it as a cause for secession. No, it emphatically named the decision of the Lincoln administration to use coercion against a people who had done them no wrong. Let's address who really profited off African slavery. The slave-trade itself was firmly in the hands of northern shipping merchants...and the said class continued to profit the whole time. Read this one again, and all the sub-links...

http://slavenorth.com/

Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.

Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.

And here is the record of Missouri's initial constitutional convention on the issue (March 1861). It has been a long time since I tried to slog through the document. However, throughout one will find the discussion over slavery, and slavery in the territories. The Missouri convetion rejected secession (and coercion.) Having recently lost the Border War over slavery in Kansas, Missourians were frank about what was happening. https://ia600402.us.archive.org/15/items/proceedings00knaprich/proceedings00knaprich.pdf Slavery seems to dominate the discussion.Red Harvest (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The following link provides a summary of the resolutions actually adopted--and my checking so far indicates it is correct. http://gathkinsons.net/sesqui/?p=2265 And notes that the Missouri convention "passed resolutions rejecting secession and endorsing the Crittenden Compromise." The Crittenden Compromise was entirely about guarantees to protect slavery. Red Harvest (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes? So the counter-point (as I brought up much earlier), is that the extension of slavery boiled down to economic issues, not a morality play. The real reason the northern powers that be did not want the expansion of slavery into the western territories was that they didn't want blacks in the said territories. Lincoln said it directly and without mincing any words. Want me to post it again? Here it is, anyway:

The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them -- Abraham Lincoln.

So far as the rest goes? Can you answer one simple question? Not withstanding that none of the states you mention listed slavery as a direct cause of their reasons for seceding, do you honestly believe that the reasons for the north to launch the invasion they did was out of any moral considerations? TexasReb (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Lincoln did not want slavery --- the concentrations of great wealth ---taking away the ability of small farmers to develop a richer agricultural society in a democratic republic. Recall both North and South, 85% of the people were engaged in agriculture in 1860. But the plantation system exhausted the land generally within three generations, requiring constant expansion into fertile soils. The northern family farmer built up his farmland, and the contrast is noted in every travelogue of the period.

2. What is the moral grounds for democracy? Over time, the people will make better decisions for themselves, and change those decisions best peaceably, by persuasion. National policy should not be set by unpersuasive minorities with better militias. The moral consideration for sustaining electoral decision with coercion is that in a democracy, bullets of rebellion shall not rule ballots of national decision making. Changes in the nation will be by persuasion of the people in a majority sustained over time, with respect given to individual liberties as upheld in the courts. Slavery in the states permitting it was what a majority was persuaded to since the beginning of the country, upheld by the courts even when slave-holders were in a minority. From the time of the Articles Congress and the Northwest Ordinance, a majority had agreed that Congress could regulate slavery in the territories.

3. Change of government had been effected peaceably among the states unanimously by following constitutional procedures authorized by Congress. It was so in the case of declaring independence, establishing the Articles Congress by the states, and establishing the Constitution Congress by the people. For secession, only 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of states in Amendment is required under the Constitution, -- not the unanimous consent attained in earlier United States history. But the fire-eating secessionists chose to force through state-only resolves irregularly, with only Texas, Tennessee and Virginia even attempting to consult the people directly.

4. There was no moral consideration for secession but rejection of democracy, Lincoln’s Congressionally certified election before the southern states vacated their seats. They objected to “mob rule”. There was no long chain of 20-year long abuses threatening any “rights” held by individuals in any state, certainly not by president-elect Lincoln, certainly not slavery. The parallel to the American Revolution fails. Although a case can be made that the state-righters in northern states made it impossible to enforce the federal Fugitive Slave Act, by requiring local jury trial to expel a presumed free black into perpetual slavery. As a matter of practice, northern juries did not convict blacks as slaves, but set men, women and children free into the second class citizenship available to African-Americans in northern states. But their numbers were small, the Underground Railroad notwithstanding.

5. For the fire-eating secessionists, there was only the prospect that expansion of slavery would not be allowed by a majority in Congress upholding democracy, northerners voted across party lines for the first time on the issue of Kansas, despite the lobbying of President Buchanan. Congress rejected coerced voting fraud in Kansas, denying entry as a slave state, but accepting it as a free state on January 29, 1861. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The various Northern motives/plans for the territories, and morality issues are not particularly relevant in examining what Southerners themselves were claiming as their reasons for seceding. It doesn't matter whether the North was racist or what the North's motive was for going to war or opposing secession. (The Southern complaint was that "Black Republican" Lincoln was not racist enough and would make the black man equal to the white in the eyes of the law. This would of course upset their "domestic institutions.") Similarly, I can't see what the maritime slave trade of the first decade of the 1800's has to do with Southerners' views looking forward in 1860/61. If we end up discussing that as a cause of secession we might as well be discussing George Washington's false teeth for all of the relevance it will add.

If you scan through a handful of these conventions as I've been doing you will keep coming upon "domestic institutions", slavery, and even "peculiar institution" used seemingly interchangeably. Indeed, the language of the still pending Corwin Amendment makes use of it and goes on to specify what particular domestic institution is of concern: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." Red Harvest (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion: The original sentence as well as "indirect" are misrepresentations of what Alabama declared in the way of the state's reason for choosing secession. Linking them to two states that did not give cause creates an erroneous impression to the reader. Rather than drafting a separate section that was a declaration of causes as the four other states had done, Alabama made the cause central to its ordinance. Therefore, rather than spin it as something it was not, let their own historical words state it. The original wiki wording made it sound like an indirect mention of slavery was made in passing when, instead, outside hostility toward their "domestic institutions" was their stated reason for secession. The only thing missing would be defining for readers what they meant by "domestic institutions," but adding that requires a good accepted cite, probably academic in nature. Most of us studying the ACW today already know what it is, and everyone did at the time. Red Harvest (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No, what you are doing is desperately attempting to blend state resolutions passed -- some even before Lincoln's election -- with the wording of the actual Ordinances of Secession. One can only go by the actual wording, not your spin on it. And in this case, "domestic institutions" was indirect reference to slavery. Now if you want to create a new sub-article related to state resolutions? Then by all means do so (keeping in mind what is good for the goose is good for the gander). TexasReb (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Untrue. These were all done after the election (though not necessarily the electoral college vote, which the Southern states didn't wait around for.) Why are you so eager to remove the period Southern POV as expressed in their ordinances and declarations? The sourced material you removed stays, since it directly addresses the lack of declaration for FL. Note that the wording you removed for FL said nothing about what was in the declarations draft, only that it existed. This seemed the correct approach for NPOV. I'm not putting my spin on it, I'm removing pre-existing spin/outright errors by letting the original state documents do the talking where possible. BTW, it was your own "talk" assertions about the causes in the ordinances that has led to my notice and correction of the errors in the then existing article, thanks for the heads up. Since shorter summaries cannot be agreed upon because of your stated desire to apply a POV, direct quotations from official publications are used where applicable. Red Harvest (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The whole problem IMO started when the language of the ordinances of secession were added. The fact that these ordinances said very little or nothing about the reasons for secession (in contrast to the four declarations of causes that were very specific) is really not relevant in explaining why the states declared for secession. It is misleading to leave the language as it was, since it suggests to a reader that only the four states that issued the declarations cared about slavery. In fact, these states cared just as much about protecting slavery and it is our obligation to bring out the information that demonstrates that. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

PS The silliest argument being presented is the claim that the reference to "domestic institutions" is only an indirect reference to slavery. The people of the time as well as anybody familiar with the history of the era know exactly what institution was being referred to. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Ahhhh, I see the problem/disagreement/sensitivity now, it looks like the inaccurate summaries I've been editing were added by Texasreb back in March: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_States_of_America&oldid=600791054 Ironically, this originally included some of the same direct quotes of ordinances I've added back in or substituted to eliminate spin. The summaries themselves were problematic, but another editor removed some quotes from the primary sources, making it non-obvious. And that is why it is often best to let the subjects speak for themselves when disputes like this arise. Texasreb expanded the section, and doesn't like the direction it has headed as a result of that expansion.

The discussion of any ordinance after the firing on Ft. Sumter obscures the fundamental "secession causation" discussion, because the states were in effect forced to take sides. And that is why in order to consider the Upper South/Border States' original causes for considering secession, one must examine their conventions/resolutions prior to Sumter. Their immediate cause (of those that actually seceded) was that they opposed coercion to the degree that they would side with the states of the Deep South and take up arms against the rest of the U.S. Red Harvest (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)