Why did the South secede?

[BabyBre]

Based on your own knowledge, give your best answer.

[lmrich]

My group of homeschool kids went to the Atlanta History Center for a field trip with a guide (awesome) and the guide said that this was the first group who got the answer correct!

[patchfire]

I always like to (jokingly) place all the blame on John C. Calhoun. That way I get to blame dh's family. ;)

 

The real answer is 'all of the above,' IMO, though some provided more dynamite than others, and Lincoln's election was more like the detonator.

[LibraryLover]

It's simplistic to say one thing. Tariffs and taxes *and* state's rights. It was not one thing. The southern states couldn't control the government and it's tariffs (the south felt they were at a disadvantage). If they seceded they could be free of these tariffs, and make their own individual state laws. It's a package.

 

As for slavery. Lincoln first said if he could preserve the Union and allow slavery, he would. (He did not want a war). He couldn't, of course, so he changed /had his mind changed on that.

 

As for L's presidency itself...not a popular guy in the south. But not a reason alone to sucede.

Edited October 4, 2010 by LibraryLover
dam speelcheek. lol

[Maverick_Mom]

I can't vote, because as I understand it (having just studied the Civil War with my kids last year, and from my own reading), there was more than one cause, and the poll will let me vote for only one.

 

But if I *could* vote, it would be "all of the above, to one degree or another."

[nd293]

My group of homeschool kids went to the Atlanta History Center for a field trip with a guide (awesome) and the guide said that this was the first group who got the answer correct!

 

Which was what? I have always understood (from popular media more than anything else) that slavery was the issue, but I imagine that that would be an off-shoot of states' rights.

 

Nikki (A South African transplanted Down Under)

[fairfarmhand]

I can't vote, because as I understand it (having just studied the Civil War with my kids last year, and from my own reading), there was more than one cause, and the poll will let me vote for only one.

 

But if I *could* vote, it would be "all of the above, to one degree or another."

:iagree:

[LibraryLover]

Which was what? I have always understood (from popular media more than anything else) that slavery was the issue, but I imagine that that would be an off-shoot of states' rights.

 

Nikki (A South African transplanted Down Under)

 

 

The abolitionist movement was very strong. Long before the civil war , many people in the Union (including some southerners) were working towards making slavery illegal. Lincoln himself campaigned to prevent new states from becoming slave states. (Not popular among many- which is one reason his election wasn't too popular in some areas of the country).

 

Slavery was a contentious point in the US before the civil war. It was absolutely an issue, but not the main issue for the south's secession. However, for some people, yes, it was *the* issue, and was even used a recruiting tool.

Edited October 4, 2010 by LibraryLover

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

I can't vote, because as I understand it (having just studied the Civil War with my kids last year, and from my own reading), there was more than one cause, and the poll will let me vote for only one.

 

But if I *could* vote, it would be "all of the above, to one degree or another."

 

:iagree: However, I voted for State's rights because any of those others could be considered as a right of each State to decide and/or vote on.

[LibraryLover]

Eyes kan speell.

[RegGuheert]

A multi-select poll would have made more sense, IMO.

[Kates]

I voted for States' Rights as well...all of the others (except for Lincoln's election) should have been something each state could vote on to accept or not.

 

All of these were definite issues in the matter, but States' Rights was the underlying cause. The others (such as Lincoln's election) acted more as a catalyst.

[teamturner]

I can't vote, because as I understand it (having just studied the Civil War with my kids last year, and from my own reading), there was more than one cause, and the poll will let me vote for only one.

 

But if I *could* vote, it would be "all of the above, to one degree or another."

 

:iagree: There is more than one reason so I am not voting either. It was state's rights, but the leaders of the southern states were mostly trying to hold on to the right to not only keep slavery but to expand it into the new states. These leaders were the wealthy and slave owners, not the common people of the south. Lincoln's election was the final straw to the southern states. Many of the non-slave owners that fought on the side of the Confederacy, did it because they loved their state, not neccessarily because they felt so strongly about slavery.

 

At least that is what I have gleened in our Civil War readings thus far.

[DarcyB]

:iagree: However, I voted for State's rights because any of those others could be considered as a right of each State to decide and/or vote on.

 

:iagree:

[JudoMom]

I voted for States' Rights as well...all of the others (except for Lincoln's election) should have been something each state could vote on to accept or not.

 

All of these were definite issues in the matter, but States' Rights was the underlying cause. The others (such as Lincoln's election) acted more as a catalyst.

 

:iagree:

[Guest]

I think it is more than one answer.

[mommaduck]

It should have been multiple choice.

[Tree House Academy]

I voted "States Rights" because I think it centered around that...though the other options played a role as well.

[mcconnellboys]

It was really a combination of these things, but I'm assuming you want the major reason, so that's how I answered....

[hillfarm]

I grew up north of The Line, I spent much of my adulthood living south of The Line, and an original Underground Railroad path passes not 20 feet from my front door. I have seen and heard proponents of each cause froth at the mouth to promote their side and demonize any who would vote otherwise.

 

IMO, states' rights was the cause. To determine the slavery issue, certainly, but also to address a multitude of other important economic and social issues.

[Kim in Appalachia]

It's unfair to try and pin in on just one thing. There were so many different issues. Slavery was huge, but it was almost an excuse, both for the South and the North. From reading, it seems like those in power in the South used slavery to push for succession, it galvanized the land owners. The North used it as well, to put a face, so to speak, on why people were going to go and kill their neighbors. It was all very complex, with people in power almost forcing the issue.

 

It mostly seems like leaders in the South were determined to be independent, but it also seems like leaders in the North were determined to see how far they could push the South. Caught up in it all were lots of good people trying to end slavery. There were those in the South who wanted it to end as well, but didn't want a war.

[Krista in LA]

I voted states' rights, but really would say all of the above. Having grown up in the north, we were taught in school that it was all about slavery. Living in the south now, it's all about everything but slavery.

[Mrs Mungo]

The Southern states seceded over slavery. A reading of the articles of secession will show that. Speeches given by Southern leaders will show that. Do not take my word for it, look at the primary sources.

 

The North went to war to preserve the union, slavery was only a side issue for them. By the way, I am pretty sure every thread we have ever had on this has wound up locked.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

The Southern states seceded over slavery. A reading of the articles of secession will show that. Speeches given by Southern leaders will show that. Do not take my word for it, look at the primary sources.

 

The North went to war to preserve the union, slavery was only a side issue for them. By the way, I am pretty sure every thread we have ever had on this has wound up locked.

 

:iagree: When I went to the Capital I saw many, many documents supporting that slavery was the reason IMHO.

[Mrs Mungo]

:iagree: When I went to the Capital I saw many, many documents supporting that slavery was the reason IMHO.

 

Oh, and there is a reason you cannot claim that it was about "state rights." The slave-owning states were actually mad that the federal government was not forcing non-slave-owning states to return runaway slaves. The slave-owning states wanted the federal government to force the other states to comply with laws in regard to runaway slaves, taxes on slaves, etc.

[Slartibartfast]

I voted "slavery"

 

 

Most of the articles mention slavery specifically or they go on and on about how the Fugitive Slave Act wasn't being enforced by some states and they were complaining about loss of "property"

[Mrs Mungo]

I voted "slavery"

 

 

Most of the articles mention slavery specifically or they go on and on about how the Fugitive Slave Act wasn't being enforced by some states and they were complaining about loss of "property"

 

Also, they wanted the "right" to take their slaves into non-slave-holding states. That's not fighting for state rights, that is fighting for slavery.

[Slartibartfast]

For example,

 

Georgia

 

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

 

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.

 

 

Blah blah blah this is really long...

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.

 

I do not believe Georgia seceeded over State's Rights.

[Spy Car]

The Southern states seceded over slavery. A reading of the articles of secession will show that. Speeches given by Southern leaders will show that. Do not take my word for it, look at the primary sources.

 

The North went to war to preserve the union, slavery was only a side issue for them. By the way, I am pretty sure every thread we have ever had on this has wound up locked.

 

:iagree:

 

The "State's Right" in question was the right of a State to legislate the legal enslavement of human beings and the treatment of those enslaved people as chattel property with no legal or human rights.

 

As far as I'm concerned no State has that "right."

 

Bill

[Stacy in NJ]

:001_smile:

[SnowWhite]

I agree with everyone who said "all of the above, to some extent or another."

[lmrich]

The Atlanta History Center supported the reason was... State Rights. The reasoning was that as new states joined the Union they could not be slave states. The National government was making a law that was to be considered a state issue at that time. So the reason for the war is complex - slavery and state rights and even the election of my favorite guy Abe, but the simple answer is State rights.

[Mom22ns]

I'm sorry, I tried to vote for more than one and since I can't I didn't vote. I think it is very wrong to look at only one issue.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

:iagree:

 

The "State's Right" in question was the right of a State to legislate the legal enslavement of human beings and the treatment of those enslaved people as chattel property with no legal or human rights.

 

As far as I'm concerned no State has that "right."

 

Bill

 

:iagree:

[Tonia]

Oh, and there is a reason you cannot claim that it was about "state rights." The slave-owning states were actually mad that the federal government was not forcing non-slave-owning states to return runaway slaves. The slave-owning states wanted the federal government to force the other states to comply with laws in regard to runaway slaves, taxes on slaves, etc.

 

:iagree: Good book that deals with this a bit - Teaching What Really Happened.

[KidsHappen]

It was not until I was in college that I even heard of the states rights issue. Needless to say, I may a special effort to cover this subject with my children.

[Lindy]

I think your answer may depend on where you were located geographically when you first learned the ends and out of the Civil War. Being from South Carolina, the first state to secede, my history lectures were severely tainted with heavy talk of state's rights. Occasionally slavery was mentioned, but mostly in the context of "how well" slaves were treated. :confused:

 

Only recently, as I did my own research, have I realized how the horrid Civil War, or War of Northern Aggression, really was about slavery and the selfishness of wealthy plantation owners.

[Laurie4b]

Should we do a pool to see who guesses when this thread gets locked?My vote: Tuesday morning, Oct. 4th by 11:30 a.m.

[Slartibartfast]

I think your answer may depend on where you were located geographically when you first learned the ends and out of the Civil War. Being from South Carolina, the first state to secede, my history lectures were severely tainted with heavy talk of state's rights. Occasionally slavery was mentioned, but mostly in the context of "how well" slaves were treated. :confused:

 

Only recently, as I did my own research, have I realized how the horrid Civil War, or War of Northern Aggression, really was about slavery and the selfishness of wealthy plantation owners.

 

The South Carolina documents are here on that site

 

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South Carolina

 

They don't give any reason other than slavery. It is well documented that South Carolina only joined the rest of the states when slavery was agreed on.

 

Once slavery was an issue again they no longer felt obligated.

 

It is hard to imagine someone trying to teach that South Carolina seceeding wasn't about slavery when the actual voices from that era say it was. They state it quite clearly. I grew up hearing "State's Rights" as well. I think a lot of people did. Maybe if it was about State's Rights we wouldn't be as guilty. :(

 

 

 

 

Mississippi's documents state

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world

Edited October 5, 2010 by Sis

[EthiopianFood]

Oh, and there is a reason you cannot claim that it was about "state rights." The slave-owning states were actually mad that the federal government was not forcing non-slave-owning states to return runaway slaves. The slave-owning states wanted the federal government to force the other states to comply with laws in regard to runaway slaves, taxes on slaves, etc.

 

:iagree: Also, my understanding is that a state was required to allow slavery if they wanted to be a part of the Confederacy. My source says that slavery was even in the title of their constitution, although I can't find this information now (I won't reveal my source LOL).... Is this what you have read?

 

ETA: I'm REALLY not finding what this person quoted. I would love to know if it was true or not.

Edited October 5, 2010 by RaeAnne

[Slartibartfast]

:iagree: Also, my understanding is that a state was required to allow slavery if they wanted to be a part of the Confederacy. My source says that slavery was even in the title of their constitution, although I can't find this information now (I won't reveal my source LOL).... Is this what you have read?

 

ETA: I'm REALLY not finding what this person quoted. I would love to know if it was true or not.

 

Slavery was not in the title of their Constitution. It was The Constitution of the Confederate States of America

 

Here is a link to the document :)

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

 

What is it you are looking for? Do you mean what Mrs Mungo was referring to?

Edited October 5, 2010 by Sis

[dansamy]

Slavery was not in the title of their Constitution. It was The Constitution of the Confederate States of America

 

Here is a link to the document :)

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

 

What is it you are looking for? Do you mean what Mrs Mungo was referring to?

 

Plaigiarize much, CSA? (And I say this as a born & bred Southern white chick. I love the South. Warts and all!)

Edited October 5, 2010 by dansamy
typos...yay!

[Slartibartfast]

Plaigiarize much, CSA? (And I say this as a born & bred Souther white chick. I love the South. Warts and all!)

 

The form of governments of the ancient Germans and the modern Indians; in both, the existence of the three divisions of power is marked with a precision that excludes all controversy. The democratical branch, especially, is so determined, that the real sovereignty resided in the body of the people, and was exercised in the assembly of king, nobles, and commons together.

 

~John Adams

 

:)

[dansamy]

The form of governments of the ancient Germans and the modern Indians; in both, the existence of the three divisions of power is marked with a precision that excludes all controversy. The democratical branch, especially, is so determined, that the real sovereignty resided in the body of the people, and was exercised in the assembly of king, nobles, and commons together.

 

~John Adams

 

:)

 

I was referring to the wording being almost verbatim from the US Constitution in several areas. I just found it quite interesting. Although, I guess we can't really blame them. They sort of had to quickly organize a government and print some money to finance a war...

 

I know the Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression as some of my relatives call it...) was fraught with many issues. Slavery, couched under the banner of state rights, was certainly a hot button. Lincoln's election and the impending federal abolition of slavery was certainly a catalyst.

Edited October 5, 2010 by dansamy

[Slartibartfast]

I understand...I was just sayin' :lol:

 

I cannot really be very eloquent, I have a toddler who is up for some insane reason and they are sticking race cars down my shirt..

[EthiopianFood]

Slavery was not in the title of their Constitution. It was The Constitution of the Confederate States of America

 

Here is a link to the document :)

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

 

What is it you are looking for? Do you mean what Mrs Mungo was referring to?

 

This is what I found as well. He showed some sort of document that included the phrase "slave states" or something like that. I'm going to see if I can figure out what the heck he was talking about. :glare:

[Miss Sherry]

The Southern states seceded over slavery. A reading of the articles of secession will show that. Speeches given by Southern leaders will show that. Do not take my word for it, look at the primary sources.

 

The North went to war to preserve the union, slavery was only a side issue for them. By the way, I am pretty sure every thread we have ever had on this has wound up locked.

:iagree:The Southern states seceded over slavery. Unfortunately, their economy relied too heavily on slave labor. The North went to war to preserve the union.

I think it's a cop out to call it "states rights". What gives, or has ever given, any state the "right" to have slaves ? I know it has been a practice in many countries throughout history, and is to this day, however, I do not believe it is anyone's "right" to own slaves.

 

 

edited to add: I would like to clarify that although I do not think slavery is "legal" in any country, it is still known to be a problem in many parts of the world today.

Edited October 5, 2010 by Miss Sherry

[Barb_]

My grandpa is 83 years old. His great-granddaddies all fought in the Civil war on the side of the south, in NC. I believe I'll call him tomorrow and ask him what he thinks the civil war was about. I can't believe I've never thought to do it before.

 

Barb

[Trish]

Because their economy depended on slavery.

[lmrich]

I think the southern states knew even then not to declare that they were going to war to keep slaves. I think they selected their words very carefully and made the states rights the issue. Most of the soldiers who enlisted were not slave owners. The confederate had to say something to the common man to get him to fight. Again, just my opinion, the South told people that the federal government (and Lincoln) was going to start taking away their rights of statehood. Freedom was the bigger issue. The states wanted freedom to do whatever they wanted - even freedom to act immoral.