South Seceding?

Question

What are the reasons that the South seceded.

Answer 1

There have always been those who insist that "states rights" was THE issue and not slavery. The problem is that they never do a very good job explaining what exact "rights" of the states were at issue! In fact, it was concrete issues --not some abstract principle of "states rights" -- that caused Southern objections. These were principally economic. The two leading ones were the tariff and slavery. And in 1860 the latter was THE issue.

In fact, a look at the formal documents of the time, and the statements of Confederate leaders make it clear that the CENTRAL "states rights" issues revolved around the right to own slaves! I am not saying that all who make the "states rights" argument are ignorant or deliberately misleading (though some have advanced the argument specifically to justify the Confederacy and condemn the North).

There are historical reasons for their misunderstanding of the issues, some of which can be seen during the Civil War itself. Some of this confusion has come from the notion that the North's PURPOSE in entering the war is the same thing as the REASON for Southern secession and the war. But why do they have to be the same? Wanting to restore the Union with slavery still allowed hardly disproves that the disagreement about slavery was what CAUSED secession and thereby the war. In fact, most of the Northern efforts before the war to bring Southern states back focused on assurances about the protection of slavery, demonstrating that they perceived this as THE key issue.

But for those who believe slavery was NOT the true cause of secession,the best answer is to look at the OFFICIAL statements of Southern states and their officers. In fact, they make it clear that securing SLAVERY was central to THEIR purpose!

Look first of all at the statements of the states that LED the way in seceding, where they make very clear how central slavery was (the right to hold slaves, the fugitive slave laws, etc). Just read the Declarations of Causes of Seceding States - South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html

And note that the "violations of states rights" they refer toare specifically related to slavery issues!! So again, saying "it was about states rights" in the abstract, as if slavery was not THE central "states rights" concern, is at best misleading.

Note here that statements of various leaders of border states who joined the Confederacy LATER, or of officers like Lee, who followed their states, does nothing to disprove the causative role of slavery in the conflict. The reason for which these men (or even the states) joined the Confederacy, and their own purposes in fighting are not the same as the CAUSE of the conflict!

See also [Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens: Cornerstone Address (March 21, 1861)

Speaking of the draft Constitution for the Confederacy he notes the following:

"taking the whole new Constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment, that it is decidedly better than the old. Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. . . .

"not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the ***** in our form of civilization. THIS WAS THE IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF THE LATE RUPTURE AND PRESENT REVOLUTION!! [emphasis mine]. . . .

"Those ideas [of the founders], however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell." Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the ***** is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. . . ."
http://civilwartalk.com/cwt_alt/resources/documents/cornerstone_addy.htm


Now I made sure to include Stephens remarks about the revenue/tariffs issue, which had long been a bone of contention between the sections. Indeed, at an earlier stage of the North-South conflict THIS "states rights" issue was at the fore, esp. in the "nullification crisis" with South Carolina, John Calhoun, etc. So we can see that there was a BROADER clash between North and South about a set of economic issues (and policies based on them).

But by the time of the Civil War it is undeniable that slavery was the focal point of the clash, and what actually caused the break -- as Stephens himself explicitly states!!

Perhaps some of the confusion about this whole question is that some miss or forget that though 'slavery' was at the heart, we are NOT talking about some abstract issue of the right to own slaves, but about a whole integrated way of life and economic SYSTEM that had been built in dependency on slave labor and that increasingly clashed with the Northern 'free labor' system. To some degree BOTH sides felt somewhat threatened by the other (Northern workers were adamant about "free soil" in part because they feared slavery would hurt THEIR chances to compete for work). In other words, there is much truth to those who say it was a political-ECONOMIC clash. But make no mistake, at the heart of THAT clash was the institution of slavery. Not to say there would not have been the merchant vs. agrarian sectional competition, political clashes, etc., but would they ever have led to such extreme steps? To secession and Civil War? I think not. Only the issue of slavery could and di impel that radical a step... precisely as many had long predicted it might.

Yes, there was confusion about the cause(s) of secession and the war, but ultimately it should be clear. Lincoln summarized all this well in his Second Inaugural. Looking back at the situation four years earlier he remarks:
"One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves. . . . These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. ALL KNEW THAT THIS INTEREST WAS SOMEHOW THE CAUSE OF THE WAR. . . " (That "somehow" catches nicely both the point that this was THE reason and the confusion about how it all worked out.)
http://douglassarchives.org/linc_a74.htm

Answer 2

The south and north had different philosophies. The North was about the union, and the south thought that you were true to your state first and that you were only joined to the other states as a way to .... well I guess a good analogy would be the way Europe is uniting with money and stuff to make it easier. But their loyalty is still and the still consider themselves to be part of their country. The south saw themselves first as a member and citizen of their state.

Well, it really comes down to being about slavery because of course the south wanted the right to own slaves and they didn't want the north to tell them what to do. So, they seceded but didn't really see anything wrong with seceding because their loyalty to union were not as strong as their loyalty to their state.

But some men like Lee had decided that slavery was wrong and released their slaves before the war, but still fought because their loyalties were to their state. Don't get me wrong of course I think slavery is monsterous and vile and grossly inhumane. But for the country at that time it was a growing pain and it changed the loyalty feeling we now have as a country because nowadays we mostly, even in the south, feel our loyalty to our country first.

Answer 3

Look, slavery was as wrong as it could it, downright evil. Every race was a slave at one point in history. But the fact is that not only did the southern states not vote for Lincoln, he wasn't even on the ballot for them to vote for him. THEY COULDN'T IF THEY WANTED TO. That should be a wakeup call that you have NO say in your government. Brings no taxation without representation to mind. Slavery is evil, but the issue doesn't matter if you don't have a say in your own government. That's why we adopted the electoral college, so that a majority vote could still lose out to the wishes of the country as a whole.

Answer 4

They believed in states' rights over federalism. This gave them the right to seced if they no longer wished to be bound to the other states.

Answer 5

slavery and economic factors, as well as states rights.