We really need a multi quote button. Could you in the future please keep your comments all on one post so I can quote them as one response.
Straight from the horses mouth............
South Carolina's secessionist declaration enacted upon the election of Abraham Lincoln. Adopted on Christmas Eve 1860, it in pretty blunt terms demands secession on the grounds of slavery:
"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
"... A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that 'Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,' and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."
I agree your speaking right out of a horses mouth
. I also now see your intentions and purpose, not as to find truth, but to argue against my position. Otherwise you would have read my op and considered/ responded to it. I do thank you for your interest though.
So a response to the above i would say you have been misleading by being very selective and also ignoring context of southern secession. Not to mention lets pretend south carolina left the union to keep slavery and that was it, that would at the most prove south carolina left the union over slavery, not the confederacy. But even so if you would read under my op about half way down read under
Slavery's Impact On Southern Secession. That will give a better context. But even more so read under
Western States Free or Slave? Slavery was not the Cause but the Occasion/ States Rights . That will than give the context and understanding of the issue of slavery/states rights in the cotton states. I think when you remove it from its historical context, you than can be mislead.
South Carolina secession document in full
avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
As i point out in my op
South Carolina was the first state to seceded from the union, It being a deep south “cotton state” gives the reasons for secession.
If read in full it gives a good example of slavery as a states rights issue. Slavery was an occasion that states rights were fought over, not the sole cause. The cause of dissolving the union is given right off the bat
“Declared that the frequent violations of the constitution by the united sates, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union.” The document is a states rights succession document. The writers of the document wanted that to stand out, that is why the first thing noticed at a glance of the document you will see
“FREE AND INDEPENDANT STATES” capitalized three times in the document to stand out. South Carolina was also letting it be known in their declaration of Independence, that it was “FREE AND INDEPANDANT STATES” and state rights, that they were declaring independence. The document goes into the history of states rights in America mentions the failure of the federal government in upholding the constitution and its interfering with states rights. South Carolina said if they were to stay in the union the “constitution will then no longer exists, equal rights of the states will be lost” and that the federal government would become its enemy. While slavery is mentioned four or five times, states rights, independent state, and state sovereignty is mentioned sixteen times. States rights are mentioned not in connection with slavery, yet slavery is always mentioned in connection with states rights. Just as southern democrats had been saying for decades in there political party planks, an attack on slavery was an attack on states rights. Just as South Carolina when it first threatened to success was over states rights, that time [1830's] over tariffs, not slavery.