150 years ago, on April 9, 1865, Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox, Virginia. This date is typically cited as the end of the Civil War, although that is not strictly accurate. There were still several other Confederate armies in the field, and Jefferson Davis and the Confederate government were on the run. The Army of Tennessee surrendered on April 26; Jefferson Davis was captured in Georgia May 10 (he was hoping to escape to the Confederacy's western states and continue resistance); the commanding general of the Trans-Mississippi Department surrendered his forces May 26. The last organized Confederate force in the field, the First Indian Cavalry Brigade commanded by General Stand Watie of the Cherokee nation, surrendered on June 23.
It is often said that in war, the victors write the history. And yet, 150 years on, there are still those (almost all white conservatives) who argue and debate the causes and meaning of the war. The defeated Confederates had busily set about rewriting history to suit themselves, and they are aided and abetted to this day by self-proclaimed conservatives who wrap their proclaimed disdain of "big government" in a romanticization and idealization of the Confederacy and its cause.
So, let's say this loudly and unambiguously: the Civil War, quite simply, was about slavery and treason (more precisely, treason in the defense of slavery). Furthermore, it is not hard to demonstrate this, as we shall see below. So let's jump into our Way-Back Machine and find out just what was being said about secession, not by the deceitful, intellectually dishonest, and perhaps self-deluded apologists for the Confederacy of today, but by the actual Confederates of 1861.
The best evidence is, after all the words of those who were there - men who hoped and believed that they were founding a nation and were openly, even proudly, proclaiming why they were doing so, with the expectation that history would excuse and justify them.
First, the slavery part: I fully understand that no historical event realistically has a single cause. There were indeed multiple concerns that the Southern elite had regarding federal and state powers. However, events may also have a necessary cause, without which they could NOT have taken place, and slavery is indisputably the one necessary cause, above all else, of the American Civil War. The one 'right' that concerned the white Southern elite above all else was the 'right' to own human beings with dark skin as property. This is evident from the document they wrote to govern themselves - the Constitution of the CSA - and from the even more revealing declarations written by the secession conventions in multiple Southern states.
Most of the Confederate constitution is word-for-word identical to the U.S. constitution. What the white Southern elite set out to do was not so much create a radically different system of government, as to ensure that white supremacy and black slavery were embodied in the constitution as fundamental law of the land. You can find an especially useful copy of the Confederate Constitution at this website, which italicizes every part that differs from the wording of the U.S. Constitution. Much of the difference is in trivial details, like changing 'United' to 'Confederate' states, or apportionment of representatives, terms of office, etc. Other parts - not so much. The United States Constitution initially mentions slavery only to set an expiration date on the slave trade and in the infamous "three-fifths" clause, which allowed the slave owners to exploit their victims in yet one more way - to gain additional political representation for themselves in the United States Congress. The CSA Constitution has quite a bit more to say about it.
SECTION IX.
The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
This part is interesting in that it prohibits reopening the foreign slave trade. Notice, however, that it allows a specific exception: importing slaves from the United States (which of course becomes a foreign country, if the CSA is independent). One suspects that the Southern slaveholders thought that moves toward abolition in the remaining U.S. slave states just might lead their slaveholders to sell their 'property' south rather than outright lose it to abolition. In any case, the foreign slave trade was neither necessary nor politically wise in order for the Confederacy to maintain a slave society. The trans-Atlantic slave trade had been abolished by every nation on Earth and reopening it was a political impossibility. And with almost 4 million slaves in the U.S. in 1860, most of those were in the Deep South states that led the creation of the CSA, the slave population would have naturally increased on its own.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed.
Take a look at that last sentence again. The CSA Constitution specifically says that the CSA Congress cannot pass ANY law 'denying or impairing' the 'right of property' in Negro slaves. In other words, slavery is to be protected from government 'interference' - always.
ARTICLE IV, SECTION II.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in such slaves shall not be impaired.
Another change from the U.S. Constitution, with the explicit purpose of protecting 'property' in slaves.
No slave or Person held to Service or Labour in any State or Territory of the Confederate States under the Laws thereof, escaping or unlawfully carried into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
You see, those ungrateful slaves kept trying to run away. And some white people tried to help them! And the Federal government was insufficiently zealous in tracking and capturing the slaves and sending them back to the people who were holding them prisoner, whipping and beating them, and selling their wives/husbands/children to other slaveholders as if they were livestock. We won't stand for that in the CSA. No sir!
SECTION III.
The Confederate States may acquire new territory, and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States lying without the limits of the several States, and may permit them, at such times and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government, and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and territories shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
Translation: the institution of slavery will automatically be extended to any territory the CSA acquires in the future. As you may recall, the tyrannical Federal government had repeatedly passed laws prohibiting the extension of slavery to some of the new territories acquired by the U.S. especially after the Mexican War. Not ALL of the new territory, mind you...just some of it. And not TAKING AWAY slaves from any slaveholder, anywhere; just prohibiting the introduction of slavery into these areas where it had not previously existed anyway.
The framers of the Confederate Constitution were not going to stand for such tyranny by the Federal government, such an outrageous infringement on their fundamental right to spread slavery into new areas. No sir.
They took no chances; owning other human beings as property was explicitly written into their constitution, in multiple locations, and was explicitly intended to be permanently protected as a 'right' in the basic and fundamental law of their country.
But it is not just the Constitution of the CSA that we can examine for evidence. Let's consider some enlightening excerpts from the secession resolutions passed by some of the Southern states, to explain and justify their decision to secede. Let's be clear: these aren't cherry-picked obscure rantings of marginal groups in the antebellum South. These are the official declarations put forth by these states, approved by the same conventions that voted to secede. In any consideration of WHY a group of people perform certain acts, I think we can all agree that when they write out documents explaining their motives and then vote upon, and approve, said documents, we've got pretty strong evidence. We'll start with Georgia and proceed West to Mississippi and Texas - then double back and finish up with South Carolina, where it all began. I used the copies of the declarations posted at this site, but you can find them in many locations all over the web.
Here's the first two sentences from what the state of Georgia had to say about its causes for secession:
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.
Whoops. Not 'limited government' or 'state's right' or 'tariffs,' but 'African slavery.' Now, look what comes directly afterwards:
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...The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state.
I don't see anything about economics there, but I do see a whole lot about the anti-slavery position of Lincoln and the Republicans.
...The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation...
Any minute now, we'll hear about those tariffs...
The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests...The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade...they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects...The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest...they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
Okay, now we see some economics. Funny how this appears only
after the Georgians invoked slavery.
...Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.
Whoops. Funny how it keeps coming back to slavery. Apparently the good people of Georgia were outraged - outraged! - by the idea that the Federal government might leave slavery in Georgia alone, but not permit slavery to be expanded into more and more territory. Because, you see, that is "inequity" and "injustice."
...In 1820 the North...demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution...The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time...The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists.
Funny how...well, you get the idea. This next part helps to show just how crazed the Southern slaveholders were made by the election of Lincoln:
The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery and to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party to whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers...The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.
Note the great offenses of Lincoln and the Republicans in 1860: 'hostility to slavery' and 'the equality of the white and black races.' These are the outrages which the Georgians say are driving them to secession.
...for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us.
Another grave injury. The 'criminals' who help slaves escape from the people holding them and their families prisoner are shielded from punishment!
A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution.
In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their covenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him...
Ahh, our old friend the fugitive slave clause. Note that the 'unfortunate claimants' referred to are the slaveholders. And these poor 'unfortunates' are met with fraud and force when they try to recapture their 'property' (ie
fellow human beings) and return them to
a lifetime of forced labor. The unfairness and injustice of it all.
Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations...The people of Georgia...know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.
Got that? Opposition to slavery means 'the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides.' There is something incredibly revealing about this statement. The secessionists literally found it inconceivable that their society could survive without slavery. To put an end to slavery was, to them, the equivalent of destroying their families, their homes, their society. Emancipation of the slaves, social equality of black and white - these things simply could not happen without leading to 'destruction' and 'desolation.' I think that today it is almost impossible for us to understand the mindset of a people accustomed to a state of unchallenged social superiority over another race, and whose political and social elite did not simply own slaves but were
dependent on those slaves for the lifestyles of luxury and ease that they enjoyed.
Let's move on to Mississippi. Perhaps there we shall find less emphasis on slavery and more on the principled doctrine of limited government.
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Whoops. What's that? Not 'Our position is thoroughly identified with the great principles of state sovereignty and states' rights.' Not 'Our position is thoroughly identified with limited government and federalism as properly understood.' Not 'Our position is thoroughly identified with fair economic policies, tariffs, and taxation.'
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Now as far as Mississippi is concerned, we could quit right here. But let's not, because the rest of what they have to say is very revealing as well.
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.
Got that? Slavery is so vital to commerce that opposition to slavery constitutes a blow at civilization. Because only the darkies can stand to work out in the hot sun all day (Massa needs to sit on the porch, in the shade, and sip mint juleps).
The secessionists of Mississippi go on to list quite a few specific grievances against the Federal government and the Northern states:
The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory...
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
The horror! The tyranny! NEGRO EQUALITY!
It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists...
Wow! The North has inflamed prejudice, and is plotting 'schemes' of 'emancipation'! The villains!
Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
Keep in mind that that four billions of "property" they keep talking about is
other human beings. Come with me now to Texas, and let's hear what they had to say about why they seceded. Surely we will find naught but eloquent appeals to the principles of Federalism and limited government as the cause of secession.
A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.
The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation [emphasis in the original], the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof...She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time...
Whoops.
The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States...
Note that they are concerned about ONE institution in particular, and you know what that is...
When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.
The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.
But...but...but...I thought States' Rights were a GOOD thing, and overruling and disregarding Federal laws with which they did not agree was to be applauded and encouraged. Wait, I get it. 'States' rights' was a good thing when states were acting to preserve and protect slavery, but an outrageous violation of all we hold dear when states were acting to undermine or disregard slavery.
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States...
At this point you are saying: This can't be real. Somebody made this up. This is parody, satire, snark, the fevered imagination of crazed lefties trying to discredit the Confederate cause.
Again: look it up yourself. This is available at history sites, Civil War sites, Texas sites all over the net. Slavery is 'beneficial'; equality irrespective of race is 'a debasing doctrine'; and is in violation of 'Divine Law' (translation: God loves us and is on our side).
After a long list of complaints, ALL of which regard how the North and the federal government have acted to undermine slavery, we come to this:
In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states...
I do wonder just how much of this history is taught in the schools of Texas today. But now, let us return to the source - South Carolina - the first state to secede - and see what they offered up as official justification for their action.
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
I agree - you DO owe us an explanation. So far, so good.
We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
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."
Whoops. The
very first thing they complain about is fugitive slaves.
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...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...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.
Wait a minute. Now they're complaining about other states doing things they don't like - specifically in regard to slavery (and nothing else)? But...but...but...states' rights...
...The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
...but...but..what about the TARIFFS?
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction...On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
Actually, Lincoln had explicitly campaigned on the promise of leaving slavery alone where it already existed. Obama Derangement Syndrome, meet Lincoln Derangement Syndrome...
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Not one word about tariffs. Not one word. But quite a few words about the outrageous assaults upon the 'right of property' in
other human beings.
So the historical evidence is absolutely unambiguous. The Southern elite met and voted to secede in order to protect and preserve the institution of slavery; and when they created a Constitution for their new Confederacy, that Constitution proclaimed that slavery would be always and everywhere allowed and protected in any state or territory of their nation.
In order to achieve this end, they resorted to treason. This too is absolutely unambiguous. Treason is the only crime specifically defined in the U.S. Constitution, in Article 3, Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Note that part about "levying war" against the United States? Now, please go take a look and
tell me what these fellows are doing
or these
or these?
Treason in the defense of slavery. The prime reason for the existence of the Confederate States of America, proudly proclaimed and enacted by the Confederates themselves. There is no ambiguity about this; none. Unless, perhaps, one is a modern-day conservative expressing his or her admiration of Davis and Lee and Jackson, and the "noble" cause for which they fought.
(Note: this is an edited and abbreviated version of diaries I published some years ago, around the start of the Civil War 150th anniversary. It seemed appropriate to emphasize these issues again as that commemoration draws to a close).