Explaining the Southern Secession Documents

Chances are if you’re interested in the “Civil War” you’ve heard someone mention the Southern secession documents. Are these really the undeniable proof that the war was completely over slavery? Listen in as I explain a perspective you may have not considered.

[@deesandman9477]

One cannot have a “Union” for, by and of the people created at the point of a gun. The American Republic died in 1861. This centralized blob we have today is something very different.

[@McFluff33]

Lmao the confederacy lost😂

[@deesandman9477]

@@McFluff33 Sorry bro. WE ALL LOST. If you think the Federal blob we live under was a "win", you may want to examine your sanity.

[@confederateshop]

Absolutely. 1865 was "the beginning of the end of our republic," as I heard someone once say.

[@unbreakable7633]

@@McFluff33 When the South lost, the Constitution was shredded. By the North.

[@unbreakable7633]

"A union that must be stitched together by bayonets holds no charm for me." -- Robert E. Lee

[@nicholascrowder740]

That was a wonderful video! My home state of North Carolina also succeeded due to Lincoln's call of 75,000 troops. The succession ordinance by Governor John W. Ellis does not mention a single word over slavery. Also, Lincoln extended the blockade to include North Carolina on April 27th, 1861. The state did not succeed until May 20th, 1861. A blockade is an act of war. Lincoln attacked my home state even before we succeeded. Deo Vindice

[@deesandman9477]

SEccession not sUccession.

[@N.C.SSN-777]

Howdy neighbor, from coastal NC. . I do ❤ my home in this gr8 state .

[@unbreakable7633]

Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia only seceded because of Northern aggression.

[@foolishEmporer]

They could have seceded and become their own country, but chose to join the confederacy to protect slavery. Slavery was still the underlying cause of North Carolina secession

[@olekcholewa8171]

@@foolishEmporer They were literally invaded by a federal army lol

[@TheWaywardpilgrim]

Here is an often overlooked fact that proves the point. - Prior to the War, the US referred to itself in the plural, "The United States are . ." After the War, the US has always referred to itself as singular, "The United States is . . . . " - We are no longer that shining Republic.

[@confederateshop]

Good point. And the States created the Union--the Union did not created the states.

[@arnoldhuskins7641]

The reason that high tariffs were not mentioned in secession documents, despite it being one of the major reasons for secession, is because any tariffs are taxes. Taxes are constitutional; however unfair and excessive, and could not be a valid reason for secession.

[@POCKET-SAND]

That, and most of then had been repealed years before the 1860 election . . . they always like to forget that part.

[@foolishEmporer]

You can sell whatever you want. Good for you Slaves were running away from slave owners. Fugitive slaves were not givin court trials, like someone who committed a crime. They were returned to their slave owners.

[@flatcat6676]

That's not entirely correct. Under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 men & women who were accused of being escaped slaves who were captured within any of the United States or their territories were tried in special federal courts. These were not jury trials, and judgment was issued by federally appointed commissioners and judges. Under this law, which Mr. Lincoln strongly supported even during the early months of the war, judges who ruled in favor of the "owners" were paid $10 dollars (about $380 today, adjusted for inflation), but were paid only $5 (about $190 today) if they ruled in favor of the accused escapee.

[@woodsmand]

Read the secession documents yourself. Don't trust anyone else's summary.

[@mrsnakesmrnot8499]

This host suggests that Bobby Lee was some sort of woke slave owner. No, he had a bunch of slaves, and even though he claimed that he didn't enjoy managing a ton of slaves on his wealthy estate, he treated them the same as any other typical slave owner. He beat them when they weren't subservient enough, he never educated them so that they could fend for themselves, and of course, he never freed them during his life. Lee also dishonored himself by breaking his sworn oath that he made at West Point, which was to always defend the United States of America. One of the best United States generals in the Civil War was General Thomas from Virginia, but he kept his word to defend the United States from threats foreign and domestic. Ulysses Grant married a lady whose family hailed from Missouri, a slave state that remained loyal to the United States Constitution, and Grant inherited a slave from his new inlaw. Prior to this, Grant was horrible business man and failed multiple times, racking up a huge debt. He could have sold this slave for at least a thousand dollars, which in those days was a life-changing amount of money. Even though he could have really used the cash, he was true to his principles and simply set the slave free as soon as he could. THAT is a woke slave owner.

[@POCKET-SAND]

"Woke" is the incorrect word to be used here in my opinion. In essence, Lee actually was a "woke" slave owner because he did write about the evils of slavery but did absolutely nothing about it on a personal level. That's what "woke" is nowadays, all talk no action.

[@USAPatriot1776]

Once again you hit the nail on the head.God bless you and your family. God bless Dixie Kirk Murrell Arkansas

[@ps90tacguy]

The true republic died and the federal republic was born. 😢

[@hamletthaus3046]

Virginia was to remain loyal to the union. Until they realized that the union was going to invade their homeland against the south without their permission. VA would not stand for that. So VA succeeded.

[@POCKET-SAND]

The war began before that though when the South Carolinian slavers fired on U.S. troops at Fort Sumter. To put it bluntly, how the hell did the State of Virginia expect the Federal government to react? And more interesting still, why did Virginia attempt to invade their own Western counties (what is now West Virginia) when the West refused to secede from the Union, seceding from the State of Virginia instead in order to remain in the Union.

[@mrsnakesmrnot8499]

This video's host claims that South Carolina never wanted war, but he fails to say that rebels in South Carolina did not need to fire the first shots of the war. A "handful" of secession acts mentioned the preservation of slavery as their main reason? Try most of them. The first seven (before Virginia) that broke away talk about the main reason for leaving was the preservation of slavery, and Virginia should have been loyal to the Constitution. Also, Virginia should have been true to its Enlightenment principles advocated by its founding statesmen (All men are created equal), and not have had slavery in the first place. All of these compromises (i.e. 3/5 compromise, fugitive slave clause, electoral college, Kansas/Nebraska act, Missouri compromise, etc.) from the Constitutional Convention to the outbreak of civil war was morally wrong and made America look very unprincipled / hypocritical as it constantly bent over to appease the slavers who had always threatened to "take their ball and go home", even during the Constitutional Convention. Every president before Lincoln was politically "in bed" with Southern planters just to keep the peace. Lincoln was the first to be inaugurated that was not in bed with the spoiled planters, who lost their frickin' minds when he won. The poor losers couldn't wait 4 to 8 years like respectable folks are expected to do when their favorite candidate doesn't win. If the first 7 states didn't try to secede, they would probably STILL have their slave property, as Uncle Sam would keep bending over to appease them, so South Carolina was stupid by being first to leave and first to fire against Unites States soldiers. They created their own downfall. Lincoln swore an oath to protect and defend the United States and its Constitution, so being a man of honor, he had no choice but to be the Commander in Chief and save the United States from its stupid selfish factions. Slave states, whether they rebelled or not were shameless. This host tries to equate Lincoln to the abolitionists, which is just wrong. Lincoln AND the Republican Party platform only said that they did not want slavery to expand into western territories. Abolitionists were the folks who wanted to end slavery where it already existed. They were honest about the shameful hypocrisy and felt that continuing to make compromise deals with the devil was tiresome, to say the least.

[@urbancow5705]

Excellent comment. Sadly none of these guys minds will be changed, theyll just keep deluding themselves. One point Ill add though is that there were multiple civil war scares before the actual breakout from more aggro presidents on the topic of slavery. The new republican party was alot more antislavery than any that came before it and thus they lost their collective minds when they lost the vote. This guy also forgets to mention the fact that their voting system was quite different back then and regardless he won the popular vote and electoral vote. This guy is a joke

[@olekcholewa8171]

The US should have been loyal to it's constitution. The refusal of federal troops to leave the independent territory of South Carolina and imposing a blockade attempting to starve the South was an act of war.

[@POCKET-SAND]

@@olekcholewa8171 The blockade didn't begin until after Fort Sumter was fired upon, which is the start of the war. Also, nowhere in the Constitution did it say that the Union could be dissolved or broken apart.

[@foolishEmporer]

Virginia mentions in specifically the oppression slave holding states as it's cause for session. This specification directly points to what is the cause of its reason for succession. Four slave states didn't secede, and Virginia could have stood with them. It instead chose to fight for the institute of slavery

[@ponispal]

Try again.

[@foolishEmporer]

It's a fantasy to think that slavery wasn't the cause of secession. Just because they don't mention it doesn't change anything

[@FastAF420]

Have you ever been in that awful museum in downtown vicksburg? Dude got them out there with kkk flags like the south ceceeded for racism lol, dude is nuts......

[@zpy-nq7wv]

WELL SAID SIR !

[@Wentz789]

Good short history lesson.

[@johanchastain]

Thank god someone has the guts to tell the truth . Not the false narrative tought in school and repeated by fake media

[@AndreMSmithJr-yx8kd]

Where's the proof slaves we're committing crimes vs running to escape to freedom?

[@confederateshop]

Where's the proof that every single slave owner was a sadistic psychopath that simply wanted to torture people?--the modern narrative concludes such. To answer your question read an anti-slavery, Massachusetts pastor's view: A South-Side View of Slavery, by Nehemiah Adams.

[@AndreMSmithJr-yx8kd]

@@confederateshop I asked my question 1st, now where's the proof of these crimes you claim they committed, show your work

[@woodsmand]

by trying to be free they were committing a crime

[@Abdus_VGC]

​@@AndreMSmithJr-yx8kdforget about him, he is a racist guy and will resort to mental gymnastics to prove him correct and does whataboutism

[@olekcholewa8171]

⁠@@AndreMSmithJr-yx8kdHe literally did smoothbrain

[@drivingonice]

Here’s my problem with this. Most abolitionist were not like John Brown. Lincoln was not a radical abolitionist. Comparing him to John Brown is inaccurate. It’s also not correct to say run away slaves were murders or other serious criminals. I have read the articles of succession. They do all mention slavery. Many of which do relate to run away slaves.

[@confederateshop]

Most abolitionists praised John Brown. Julia Ward Howe's famous Battle Hymn of the Republic, the anthem of the North, praises him.

[@drivingonice]

@@confederateshop So not prior to the war. Prior to the war he was considered ridiculously radical, but as the war raged on opinions of him began to change and the song "John Browns Body" became a common song among the solders. "Battle Hym of the Republic" doesn't mention him, but I understand the confusion as they have the same music set to different words.

[@Joel-sy4ho]

There were radicals on both sides. The radical abolitionist and the radical fire eaters.

[@olekcholewa8171]

This is just a flat out lie. Only handful of them mention slavery at all.

[@POCKET-SAND]

@@confederateshop And most Southerners praised the violence of the pro-slavery bushwackers during the Bleeding Kansas conflict, who started that conflict. History cannot be viewed well through a microscope, you're ignoring that much of Northern attitude towards slavery and the South at that time (incuding John Brown's raid) was shaped by the bushwackers. John Brown's actions didn't come from nothing, he saw it as revenge for Kansas.

[@thejray86]

🫡 from Louisiana

[@Salahudiyn777]

This guy is delusional, I blame his parents and whatever school system that taught him.

[@confederateshop]

You are welcome to your opinion--that's what free thought is for.

[@daletalks52]

Northern states made the correct and moral choice by not returning the run away slaves to the southern states. You act like the law supersedes morality, and thats also you admitting that the major part of the war was because of SLAVERY. It's also funny when you say "only a handful of states listed slavery as their reason for secession" 7 out of 11 confederate states listed slavery as their main reason for secession, thats more than a "handful". In fact only a "handful" didnt list slavery.

[@confederateshop]

Concerning your first sentence, I stated this simply to contextualize one of the many legal points (pertaining to slavery) which South Carolina and others used in order to exemplify this fact: Why should they [ Southern states] be required to hold to the Union agreement when others were blatantly violating it. In other words, a legal precedent to divorce. 4 of the 13 states mentioned slavery--and this was more political than anything. There was no serious threat to slavery as far as it existing--Lincoln stated this, the official congressional record states this. If your premise is correct, that the South simply wanted to preserve slavery, why then would they not accept the Northern proposed offer to preserve slavery indefinitely with the first 13th Amendment? This was passed by both House and Senate, and the majority of Northern States. Letters from Lincoln to the seceded state governors even show his administration would solidify this Corwin Amendment had the South simply came back into the Union. Why didn't they? Could it be there were other issues--like those mentioned in the document outlined within my video?

[@Abdus_VGC]

the mental gymnastics are great, be deluded, they seceded to preserve the institution of slavery

[@olekcholewa8171]

If a simple explanation on why is slavery mentioned in these documents at all is "mental gymnastics" to you then you might want to have your mental capability checked.

[@Abdus_VGC]

they were an aristocracy, then what for? States rights? 😂😂😂

[@olekcholewa8171]

@@Abdus_VGC Keep the money from their crops that the US government stole using taxes and tarrifs.

[@confederateshop]

Get outta here with that righteous cause nonsense. There were a variety of reasons for secession--not simply the ones mentioned in a FEW of the ordinances. Had they wanted to preserve the institution indefinitely all they would have needed to do was simply re-join the union. The Corwin Amendment would have protected slavery within the U.S. Constitution--was passed by both the House and Senate, supported by Lincoln and the majority of Northern states. Considering this historical fact, if they were dead set on "preserving the institution of slavery"--this would have been the best way. Yet, they didn't rejoin. I wonder why...

[@POCKET-SAND]

@@confederateshop You're ignoring that many of the ordinances give no reason at all for secession. Florida's, for example, was only like a paragraph or two long. Of those that do offer reasons for secession, most list slavery as either the only cause or primary cause of secession. Yes, South Carolina's ordinance talks a lot about fugitive slave laws . . . which is related to slavery. I'd pull quotes from some of the more damning sentences of the document, but KZbin would likely delete my comment. To your comments regarding southern attitude, I would say Northerners took offense at Southerners who never traveled North, never understood the Northern way of live, demand that Northern free states change their laws and attitude regarding slavery to adhere to Southern attitudes. And yes, Lincoln's name wasn't on the ballot of many southern states, largely because the Democrats running the elections refused to put him on in much the same way they tried to do recently with Donald Trump. Dems never change . . .