The American Civil War’s origins remain a contentious topic. While some attribute the conflict primarily to slavery, others emphasize states’ rights and economic factors. To understand the Confederate perspective, analyzing primary sources like the Declarations of Causes issued by seceding states—Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, and South Carolina—offers valuable insights. These documents outline their reasons for leaving the Union, predominantly focusing on slavery and states’ rights.
The Defense of Slavery as a Primary Motivation for Secession
The Declarations unequivocally defend slavery as a core reason for secession. Each state explicitly identifies the preservation and protection of the institution as a paramount objective.
-
Economic Significance: Mississippi and Georgia underscored slavery’s vital role in their economies. Mississippi declared its unwillingness to lose property valued at four billion dollars, while Georgia protested the North’s threat to outlaw three billion dollars in Southern assets. Mississippi explicitly stated that “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world.”
-
Moral and Religious Justification: Texas asserted that slavery was “mutually beneficial” and “justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator.” This reflects the deeply ingrained belief system that fueled pro-slavery arguments.
-
Fear of Abolition: South Carolina condemned Northern states for “denouncing as sinful the institution of slavery” and allowing abolitionist societies to operate. Georgia echoed this sentiment, highlighting the North’s “fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery.” The perceived threat to their way of life was palpable.
States’ Rights: A Key Argument for Secession
Beyond slavery, the Declarations emphasize states’ rights as another major justification for secession.
-
The Union as a Compact: South Carolina articulated the view that the Union was a voluntary agreement, and the North’s actions had breached this compact. They believed that a state had the right to secede if the agreement’s terms were not upheld. Georgia similarly argued that the North disregarded international law and the federal government was powerless to enforce it. This reflects the core principle of states’ rights they espoused.
-
The Fugitive Slave Act: Both South Carolina and Texas condemned Northern states for not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. They viewed this as a violation of the constitutional compact and a direct threat to their property rights. Texas specifically cited the failure of Northern states to uphold the Fugitive Slave Clause as justification for secession.
Additional Grievances Fueling Secession
The Declarations also included other grievances against the North.
-
Abraham Lincoln’s Election: All four states expressed deep concern over Lincoln’s election, fearing his anti-slavery stance and potential impact on their way of life. They saw his victory as a harbinger of further encroachment on their rights.
-
Economic Exploitation: Georgia accused Northern manufacturers of exploiting the South and using the federal government for their own economic gain. This highlights the economic tensions that further exacerbated the divide between North and South.
-
Lack of Military Protection: Texas criticized the federal government for insufficient protection against Native American raids and Mexican bandits, demonstrating their dissatisfaction with federal policies on the frontier.
Conclusion: A Multifaceted Rationale for Secession
The Declarations of Causes reveal a complex interplay of factors motivating secession. While slavery undeniably played a central role, states’ rights, economic grievances, and political anxieties all contributed to the Confederate states’ decision to leave the Union. Examining these primary sources provides crucial context for understanding the causes of the American Civil War and the deeply rooted divisions that led to this pivotal moment in American history. These documents offer a window into the mindset of the secessionists and underscore the complexities of interpreting historical events.
