| Again, there is no debate among historians about why the states seceded. See the final link in my previous post. > You'll notice no mention of slavery, but instead the perversion of federal power. The only mention of the word slave is the oppression of not only Virginia "but the southern slave holding states". The perversion of federal power mentioned is the new government's coming actions to eventually kill slavery. Again, the governor of Virginia said as much (“The Northern States must strike from their statute books their personal liberty bills, and fulfill their consitutional obligations in regard to fugitive slaves and fugitives from justice. If our slaves escape into non-slaveholding states, they must be delivered up.”) Again, no other cause is mentioned by any of the states. > For these states, they were not seceding "because slavery" they were seceding because the Federal government was bypassing Congress to start a war and had no intention of taking up arms against the south. They didn't like Lincoln's call for volunteers to bring the seceding states in line, yet they had no qualms about immediately raising troops via draft (via the first conscription law in the United States) to fight against the Union. Why is that? You noticed that your Wikipedia link about the timeline of events leading to secession is all about the history of slavery regulation in the United States, right? Your quotes are proposals of what to do with Southern states that seceded, not the cause of secession. You're going into mental contortions to disagree with historians. Why? |
The quotes were to provide you with context on the economic impact secession was going to have on the northern economy (which would have been devastating). I'm well aware of everything left out of the Wikipedia timeline, but it's a locked topic with 15,000 plus edits.
If you want a better understanding of the subject, there are a lot of books to satisfy your curiousity.