American Civil War and States Rights

This year marks the 150th Anniversary of the commencement of the American Civil War (April 11), a war that on numerous levels transformed the United States. These transformations ranged from hundreds of technological advances to military strategy to the elimination of slavery to how the nation would think of itself both internally and internationally.

Why did the Southern States secede? One of the most commonly reason given is that the South seceded over a fight for state’s rights against an overbearing central National government. Over 55 to 70% of respondents today give this as the primary cause with slavery representing about 20 to 25% and the election of Lincoln receiving a slither of responses, 2 to 5%. Some surveys have 10 to 20% of respondents stating the cause was tariffs and taxes.

Was state’s rights the primary issue? Shortly following the Civil War, a growing number of the surviving Confederate civic, corporate and military leaders articulated states rights was the root cause. As the number of leaders articulating that states rights as the reason, it was not long before the general population of the southern states to state the same, and then by the middle of the 20th century a growing number in the northern and western states listing states rights as the dominant cause.

Do the South’s pre-Civil War newspaper reports, letters from leadership and the secession documents speak of state’s right? If this was the primary cause, not slavery, then we would find state’s rights repeatedly articulated in the South’s documents and newspaper reports before and during the Civil War. There is not a hint of state’s rights in South Carolina’s “Ordnance of Secession” or in the passionate rhetoric filling the Palmetto State’s newspapers. Instead they speak of the right to own and trade African Americans. Mimicking the Revolutionary call “give me liberty or give me death,” the cry of the South Carolinian leaders was “Give us slavery or give us death.”

South Carolina’s complaint was that their northern neighbors have “deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof” and to “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery.” What SC were referring to was northern states banning slavery from their soil, allowing slaves to marry and in some cases granting them citizenship and the right to vote in local elections. If anything, with northern states exercising rights to ban slavery, South Carolina was against their northern neighbors exercising states rights and their anger that the national government was not repressing the actions of the north, including prohibiting the formation and meeting of anti-slavery associations.

Mississippi’s and Georgia's Secession documents and newspapers speak of slavery, not state’s right. State after state in the Confederacy echo South Carolina’s documents, letters and newspapers. States right is not found as a triggering cause. Slavery was the primary cause and the election of Lincoln, a man who openly and strongly argued against slavery, was the last straw and the end of a process that started in the 1830s with South Carolina’s nullification crisis that President Jackson put down.

What has occurred is that after the Civil War those who know that they seceded over slavery restating their rationale with a falsehood, and the general population of succeeding generations has accepted a falsehood as truth.