I have the book and read it several times. The part that caught my eye was where Alexander talks about one reason artillery could not support Pickett in his charge. Confederate artillery rounds were many times faulty and fell within the ranks of advancing confederates. It caused many casualties and made advancing confederate troops so angry , Porter said, that often times when artillery would fire in support, the supported troops would turn around and fire on their own artillery men. Great book.
Great comment, thank you! I'm not aware of any artillery bombardment successfully paving the way for an attack over the course of the whole war...possible exception of the Union bombardment on the second day at Pea Ridge.
I stumbled upon this channel and a few others over the past year. I credit TH-cam for me cutting the cord, these tidbits of knowledge are astounding to me, thank you for sharing.
South was not industrial area so the artillery rounds were wronger qualities than the Northerns! The blockad runner ships could bring saltpepper but artillery rounds were not in the ships thanks to the Northern blockader Navy!
That has always been my argument. If the south had won, the US would have been split in half and we would not be the powerful, great nation that we are today. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone else say that, and for it to be a Confederate is astounding. Thank you for sharing that.
My argument has always been the inevitable reconnection due to commonalities and relationships. Slavery was on the way out. The Federal Govt had, with the DEMANDING of troops to fight the Deep South and DEMANDING federal military port access and DEMANDING engaging in an embargo and DEMANDING to allow federal troops to traverse certain states CAUSED the final FRACTURE (VA NC TN AR) of departing states. Without those 4 leaving, without the federal coercing the Deep South, reunification would have been accomplished in short order.
Another conflict would have taken place within a generation, over western territorial claims, tariffs, the existence of slavery, or (insert your reason here). In any event, the Confederacy had no realistic chance of victory unless the Union decided to quit.
@@bjohnson515 What historical evidence is there that slavery was on the way out? If we turn to the words of the slavers, there was a strong desire to expand slavery, not phase it out. Oh, and as to the Federal government DEMANDING troops...you do realize that the Constitution gives the President authority to act as COMMANDER if chief, not SUGGESTER in chief...
@@aaronfleming9426 The historical evidence is that every other western nation outlawed it with Brazil last. The South would have had to abolish its explicit form of slavery if they wanted to export to any occidental country. However they would have still kept a brutal form of racial class segregation impoverishing blacks But they did that anyway.
Wow, you continue to outdo yourself with your rigorous research. General Alexander’s book, likely in a summarized form, should be mandatory reading for all students desiring an unbiased view of the origins, conduct, outcome and effects of the War of the Rebellion. Thank you Ron for continuing to expand our knowledge base on this fundamental topic.
Porter was full of prunes (as my dear old Grandmother used to say). In everyday life we are all fully aware that people are quite free with their unpopular opinions when they think they're going to win, who then suddenly begin singing a different tune when it turns out they are, in fact, going to lose very hard. This is exactly the case with the Slave Holders' Rebellion, but thankfully we have an abundance of historical data, in their own founding documents and declarations of causes, which demonstrates they were rebelling for the express purpose of perpetuating their slave economy indefinitely. I submit this quote from a wiser man and better general, George H. Thomas: "The greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed. This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains; a species of self-forgiveness amazing in its effrontery, when it is considered that life and property-justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war, and of nations, through the magnanimity of the government and people-was not exacted from them."
There's no point in arguing with someone like you. You come on here with a preconceived agenda and had no intention of taking in anything positive from his remarks but instead find ways to childishly demean dead people that can't defend themselves to serve your sick fantasy you have construed in your head. "Slave Holders' Rebellion" has to be the most silly, pathetic revisionist title of the American Civil War I have ever seen.
George Thomas was a traitor to his neighbors. If he didn’t feel he could have supported the perceived cause for which his neighbors fought… he should have sat it out. He’s the same as the character in the movie “The Patriot” who torched the church holding his fellow countrymen.
Porter's words really are nonpartisan, taking into account his conclusion. He persists in defending the Lost Cause, but admits it was for the best that the South was defeated and was better off rejoining the Union. In fact, after regaining Union status the rebel states were accorded the full range of state's rights they enjoyed before the rebellion. And they took full advantage of those rights. They even escaped the 14th Amendment penalty for disenfranchising their supposedly free black citizens; to my knowledge no state ever had its congressional delegation reduced or penalized for not allowing blacks to vote. If they had backed down and avoided the whole conflict, they would have ended up much better off.
Interesting comments, though there is no way he could known what 'could have been.' I believe men's opinions can change over time as to the propriety of their actions, especially defeated men's opinions. He is writing this after seeing a victorious US military in the Spanish-American war only a few years before publishing this book which came on the heels of the military subjugation of native American tribes in the middle of the country. It is logical to assume the opulence of the victorious US never would have occurred as it did had the Confederacy won its independence. If the union was preserved by military conquest (in 1865), what sort of union were we left with? It cannot be described as voluntary, and if that is true, we cannot claim to be free. Keep up this great work!! These points of view by the participants of our history are always enlightening! Merry Christmas to all.
There would not have been a Federal operation under the Constitution to suppress the armed insurrection if the slave owners who dominated politics in Southern states had not lead and/or cheered on mobs that lynched pro-Union sympathizers and the violent seizure of Federal property before many of the states formally seceded from the Union, only because it was evident that the Southern slave states had lost the control or at least veto power, over the Federal government in 1860 and could no longer defend or perpetuate slavery, much less extend into the territories.
You seem to be offering these ideas thoughtfully rather than zealously. So in that spirit, I'll comment on them. Not looking to convince or be convinced; just adding to the pile of ideas: \* Membership in nation states has nearly always been involuntary. A consequence of birth or geography if not outright conquest. \* I didn't get to choose what laws I'd be subject to. I was born into a nation and am subject to its laws. I'm not allowed to simply opt out, in ideology or with arms from that subjugation. I could lawfully relocate to another nation, but I cannot stay here and pretend that the laws of the land do not apply to me. \* Only a radical few would consider all these nation states, both present and in history, somehow illegitimate because they are involuntary. In fact, most consider the inability to arbitrarily opt out of membership to be foundational to maintaining a functioning society. Certainly it is at an individual level.
@@Psittacus_erithacus Thank you for your comments. When I say voluntary, I am referring the individual states (which our founders recognized as their own countries) voluntarily joining the union by way of state conventions to debate whether they should join the union proposed by the Constitution. I was not referring to individual persons. Keep in mind, it only took 9 of the 13 states to ratify and put into effect the Constitution. If the other 4 states did not ratify, the Constitution would not apply to them. It was also generally understood at the time that just as states can voluntarily join the union, they can also leave when it no longer served their purposes. Virginia, New York, and I believe, Rhode Island included specific language detailing this understanding in their ratification documents. Contrary to a popular belief that Southern States committed treason by leaving the union, the states were executing the only remedy to their political situation after the 1860 election. Lastly, if anyone thinks secession is or was a bad thing, it really isn't. New England states considered secession during the 1814 Hartford Convention. We had several states created by secession: Kentucky from Virginia, Maine from Massachusetts, Tennessee from North Carolina and West Virginia from Virginia. Certainly Lincoln had no problem with secession when he welcomed West Virginia into the ranks of the union. Also, what does anyone think happened in 1776? Secession from the British Empire. We don't call it that, but that is what it was; separation from one political entity to create a new political entity. Merry Christmas to you and your family!
If the federal government told people they could no longer use their gasoline powered cars, without just compensation, people would be angry. Same thing with the slaves of that time. Slaves were property, and the slave owner did not think the federal government had the authority to set them free without just compensation.
Middleton Place Plantation has a garden patterned after the Palace at Versailles. The Planters could have paid wages and still lived like Kings. If you don't know, the issue of slavery was known at the Constitutional Convention. Georgia and South Carolina refused to join the Union unless they were allowed to import slaves for another twenty years. They chose poorly and found out the hard way.
@@RSQ-z4m but they do have a right if the purchases were legally permitted by the same government that later wants to confiscate the private property they allowed to be purchased and owned.
Ron if you could have met one general officer who would have been?? Myself I think it would have been mosby he was smart never took unnecessary life and he never got caught 👍💯🍀🍀🍀
Curious that the alleged "Lost Cause" syndrome is regarded as a post war myth, crafted by bitter Southerners. Yet before ANY SHOTS were fired, in Feb of 1861....Jefferson Davis laid out, what is now called by detractors as the "Lost Cause", in his inaugural speech. Remarkable, huh? How'd that happen? BEFORE THE WAR? Maybe those who call the causes of the war and the Southern perspective and referring to it as the "Lost Cause" myth is a recasting of actual history, the victors controlling the narrative.
Not a bit. He delineates the thought processes of the combatants and then accepts the benefits of union. A different opinion might be letting the US become a world empire was not fully positive.
The Confederate general defends the South of charges of seceding on behalf of the preservation of slavery, and then is pleased to glory in the defeat of the secession, since the Union was a valuable institution. He suggests later generations may decide for themselves. They have. The South seceded in order to defend slavery, and it was a good thing they lost, because that meant slavery was abolished.
I've studied the Civil War for over 50 years. My conclusions on the causes are these: Southerners would have never endured the sacrifices the War demand of them for slavery. They were motivated by the same thing their grandfathers had rebelled against 85 years earlier, self government. As for the North, originally they were fighting to preserve the union. As the war went on, their cause became not only that but also to end slavery. Lee was no more a traitor than John Adams and George Washington were.
But not all Southerners endured the sacrifices of the war . . . Many ultimately decided The Cause, whatever it was really for, wasn't worth dying for and they went home.
@@lancegauthier489 Amen. All you have to do is read the different states' Declarations of Secession, they all declare threats to slavery as the reason for secession, usually in the 1st or 2nd paragraph.
"All Confederates repudiate ... all accusations of fighting to preserve slavery". This statement can hardly be sourced from "thorough research". The Confederacy was indisputably founded on the preservation of slavery as documented in Confederate secesstionist writing.
@williamcollins2782 , good question! While many of us are sympathetic to "states rights" issues and are aware of the trade injustices imposed on the southern states, the fact is slavery was the central issue.
i liked the last sentence: We became the most freest nation in the world and became the strongest in the world bc. of the Union as one nation vs. two weak nations, at least, i dink the South will be much weaker bc. of the agrarian vs. industrial w more nat'l resources of the north n bigger population. Yet, w/o the Southern States, we won't have been able to help Europe against the Germans in WWI and against the Germans n Japanese (two fronts of vast distance apart) in WWII.
Alexander's explanation of the causes of the war are dead on. Even H.L. Mencken noted in his critique of The Gettysburg Address that the reason for the war was for self government, not for slavery. Instead of a civil war. Southerners thought of it as a war for independence. A continuation of the American Revolution. No one can deny the South was crippled by onerous tariffs and they rightly objected vehemently to them. Instead of compromise the government doubled down triggering secession which in itself was not prohibited in our Constitution.
Well sorry for you but the southern governments were nice enough to put in writing that it was over slavery. Especially you can thank Alex Stephens for the cornerstone speech
@@Grant25They definitely seceded over slavery. There is no doubt about that. You are absolutely correct. But it’s also true that they believed they had the right of secession and pointed to the Declaration of Independence and the example of the Revolution as both justification and precedent. History just like politics today is complicated.
Both yours and Porter's arguments are the post hoc excuses and justification for the rebellion. The rebellion was to retain the enslavement of Black African Americans, and the rebels accepted no compromise on that point.
I can deny the "South was crippled by onerous tarriffs". The South was crippled by dependence on agricultural commodities that had fluctuating values that required a coerced labor supply. Most of the economic disruption in the South was traceable to the speculative Cotton Bubble of the 1830s.
Alexander's memoir, Fighting for the Confederacy, is one of the finest accounts of the war you can find. One of the best war memoirs I've ever read.
I have the book and read it several times.
The part that caught my eye was where Alexander talks about one reason artillery could not support Pickett in his charge.
Confederate artillery rounds were many times faulty and fell within the ranks of advancing confederates.
It caused many casualties and made advancing confederate troops so angry , Porter said, that often times when artillery would fire in support, the supported troops would turn around and fire on their own artillery men.
Great book.
Great comment, thank you! I'm not aware of any artillery bombardment successfully paving the way for an attack over the course of the whole war...possible exception of the Union bombardment on the second day at Pea Ridge.
I stumbled upon this channel and a few others over the past year. I credit TH-cam for me cutting the cord, these tidbits of knowledge are astounding to me, thank you for sharing.
South was not industrial area so the artillery rounds were wronger qualities than the Northerns! The blockad runner ships could bring saltpepper but artillery rounds were not in the ships thanks to the Northern blockader Navy!
I am sorry Saltpeter was blockad runner load............
Thanx. I have the book but maybe my focus on his battles commentary means I’ve never appreciated these comments. Cheers and thanx from Australia
That has always been my argument. If the south had won, the US would have been split in half and we would not be the powerful, great nation that we are today. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone else say that, and for it to be a Confederate is astounding. Thank you for sharing that.
I think many people today in much of the country would be happy to see the South leave.
My argument has always been the inevitable reconnection due to commonalities and relationships.
Slavery was on the way out.
The Federal Govt had, with the DEMANDING of troops to fight the Deep South and DEMANDING federal military port access and DEMANDING engaging in an embargo and DEMANDING to allow federal troops to traverse certain states CAUSED the final FRACTURE (VA NC TN AR) of departing states. Without those 4 leaving, without the federal coercing the Deep South, reunification would have been accomplished in short order.
Another conflict would have taken place within a generation, over western territorial claims, tariffs, the existence of slavery, or (insert your reason here). In any event, the Confederacy had no realistic chance of victory unless the Union decided to quit.
@@bjohnson515 What historical evidence is there that slavery was on the way out? If we turn to the words of the slavers, there was a strong desire to expand slavery, not phase it out.
Oh, and as to the Federal government DEMANDING troops...you do realize that the Constitution gives the President authority to act as COMMANDER if chief, not SUGGESTER in chief...
@@aaronfleming9426 The historical evidence is that every other western nation outlawed it with Brazil last.
The South would have had to abolish its explicit form of slavery if they wanted to export to any occidental country. However they would have still kept a brutal form of racial class segregation impoverishing blacks
But they did that anyway.
Quite an interesting commentary.
Wow, you continue to outdo yourself with your rigorous research. General Alexander’s book, likely in a summarized form, should be mandatory reading for all students desiring an unbiased view of the origins, conduct, outcome and effects of the War of the Rebellion. Thank you Ron for continuing to expand our knowledge base on this fundamental topic.
Merry Christmas Ron
Merry Christmas to all!
E Porter ALexander got it, like Longstreet, one of my favorite Confederates.
Democrats were big mad the Republicans took their slaves from them.
My favorite book about the army of northern Virginia is called detailed minute of soldier life
Well Said on His Part.
I want this book!👊🏻🇺🇸
Porter was full of prunes (as my dear old Grandmother used to say).
In everyday life we are all fully aware that people are quite free with their unpopular opinions when they think they're going to win, who then suddenly begin singing a different tune when it turns out they are, in fact, going to lose very hard. This is exactly the case with the Slave Holders' Rebellion, but thankfully we have an abundance of historical data, in their own founding documents and declarations of causes, which demonstrates they were rebelling for the express purpose of perpetuating their slave economy indefinitely.
I submit this quote from a wiser man and better general, George H. Thomas:
"The greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed. This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains; a species of self-forgiveness amazing in its effrontery, when it is considered that life and property-justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war, and of nations, through the magnanimity of the government and people-was not exacted from them."
There's no point in arguing with someone like you. You come on here with a preconceived agenda and had no intention of taking in anything positive from his remarks but instead find ways to childishly demean dead people that can't defend themselves to serve your sick fantasy you have construed in your head. "Slave Holders' Rebellion" has to be the most silly, pathetic revisionist title of the American Civil War I have ever seen.
George Thomas was a traitor to his neighbors. If he didn’t feel he could have supported the perceived cause for which his neighbors fought… he should have sat it out. He’s the same as the character in the movie “The Patriot” who torched the church holding his fellow countrymen.
"Slave holders rebellion". Sorry...couldn't get thru the rest of your fairytale after that one. Was laughing too hard.
“Slaveholders Rebellion” is much more (uncomfortably) close to the truth than the lost cause myth likes to acknowledge…
@@MrHand-ih4sz Didn't realize you'd get such a kick out of the truth. Glad to hear it. But I don't think you know what a "fairytale" is...
Porter's words really are nonpartisan, taking into account his conclusion. He persists in defending the Lost Cause, but admits it was for the best that the South was defeated and was better off rejoining the Union.
In fact, after regaining Union status the rebel states were accorded the full range of state's rights they enjoyed before the rebellion. And they took full advantage of those rights. They even escaped the 14th Amendment penalty for disenfranchising their supposedly free black citizens; to my knowledge no state ever had its congressional delegation reduced or penalized for not allowing blacks to vote.
If they had backed down and avoided the whole conflict, they would have ended up much better off.
Interesting comments, though there is no way he could known what 'could have been.' I believe men's opinions can change over time as to the propriety of their actions, especially defeated men's opinions. He is writing this after seeing a victorious US military in the Spanish-American war only a few years before publishing this book which came on the heels of the military subjugation of native American tribes in the middle of the country. It is logical to assume the opulence of the victorious US never would have occurred as it did had the Confederacy won its independence. If the union was preserved by military conquest (in 1865), what sort of union were we left with? It cannot be described as voluntary, and if that is true, we cannot claim to be free.
Keep up this great work!! These points of view by the participants of our history are always enlightening! Merry Christmas to all.
There would not have been a Federal operation under the Constitution to suppress the armed insurrection if the slave owners who dominated politics in Southern states had not lead and/or cheered on mobs that lynched pro-Union sympathizers and the violent seizure of Federal property before many of the states formally seceded from the Union, only because it was evident that the Southern slave states had lost the control or at least veto power, over the Federal government in 1860 and could no longer defend or perpetuate slavery, much less extend into the territories.
You seem to be offering these ideas thoughtfully rather than zealously. So in that spirit, I'll comment on them. Not looking to convince or be convinced; just adding to the pile of ideas:
\* Membership in nation states has nearly always been involuntary. A consequence of birth or geography if not outright conquest.
\* I didn't get to choose what laws I'd be subject to. I was born into a nation and am subject to its laws. I'm not allowed to simply opt out, in ideology or with arms from that subjugation. I could lawfully relocate to another nation, but I cannot stay here and pretend that the laws of the land do not apply to me.
\* Only a radical few would consider all these nation states, both present and in history, somehow illegitimate because they are involuntary. In fact, most consider the inability to arbitrarily opt out of membership to be foundational to maintaining a functioning society. Certainly it is at an individual level.
@@Psittacus_erithacus Thank you for your comments. When I say voluntary, I am referring the individual states (which our founders recognized as their own countries) voluntarily joining the union by way of state conventions to debate whether they should join the union proposed by the Constitution. I was not referring to individual persons. Keep in mind, it only took 9 of the 13 states to ratify and put into effect the Constitution. If the other 4 states did not ratify, the Constitution would not apply to them.
It was also generally understood at the time that just as states can voluntarily join the union, they can also leave when it no longer served their purposes. Virginia, New York, and I believe, Rhode Island included specific language detailing this understanding in their ratification documents. Contrary to a popular belief that Southern States committed treason by leaving the union, the states were executing the only remedy to their political situation after the 1860 election.
Lastly, if anyone thinks secession is or was a bad thing, it really isn't. New England states considered secession during the 1814 Hartford Convention. We had several states created by secession: Kentucky from Virginia, Maine from Massachusetts, Tennessee from North Carolina and West Virginia from Virginia. Certainly Lincoln had no problem with secession when he welcomed West Virginia into the ranks of the union. Also, what does anyone think happened in 1776? Secession from the British Empire. We don't call it that, but that is what it was; separation from one political entity to create a new political entity.
Merry Christmas to you and your family!
If the federal government told people they could no longer use their gasoline powered cars, without just compensation, people would be angry. Same thing with the slaves of that time. Slaves were property, and the slave owner did not think the federal government had the authority to set them free without just compensation.
If the person has no right to the car, no compensation is necessary.
How about the federal government says no more tennis balls,and no compensation. It’s just as likely as your proposition.
Middleton Place Plantation has a garden patterned after the Palace at Versailles. The Planters could have paid wages and still lived like Kings. If you don't know, the issue of slavery was known at the Constitutional Convention. Georgia and South Carolina refused to join the Union unless they were allowed to import slaves for another twenty years. They chose poorly and found out the hard way.
@@RSQ-z4m but they do have a right if the purchases were legally permitted by the same government that later wants to confiscate the private property they allowed to be purchased and owned.
Ron if you could have met one general officer who would have been?? Myself I think it would have been mosby he was smart never took unnecessary life and he never got caught 👍💯🍀🍀🍀
Sounds like old Porter was suffering from lost cause syndrome
I thought his conclusions stated a change of heart.
Porter was a Traitor to the Union.
Curious that the alleged "Lost Cause" syndrome is regarded as a post war myth, crafted by bitter Southerners.
Yet before ANY SHOTS were fired, in Feb of 1861....Jefferson Davis laid out, what is now called by detractors as the "Lost Cause", in his inaugural speech.
Remarkable, huh? How'd that happen? BEFORE THE WAR?
Maybe those who call the causes of the war and the Southern perspective and referring to it as the "Lost Cause" myth is a recasting of actual history, the victors controlling the narrative.
Not a bit. He delineates the thought processes of the combatants and then accepts the benefits of union.
A different opinion might be letting the US become a world empire was not fully positive.
The Confederate general defends the South of charges of seceding on behalf of the preservation of slavery, and then is pleased to glory in the defeat of the secession, since the Union was a valuable institution.
He suggests later generations may decide for themselves.
They have. The South seceded in order to defend slavery, and it was a good thing they lost, because that meant slavery was abolished.
I've studied the Civil War for over 50 years. My conclusions on the causes are these:
Southerners would have never endured the sacrifices the War demand of them for slavery. They were motivated by the same thing their grandfathers had rebelled against 85 years earlier, self government.
As for the North, originally they were fighting to preserve the union. As the war went on, their cause became not only that but also to end slavery.
Lee was no more a traitor than John Adams and George Washington were.
Problem is you should explain why the most slow % slave populatated were prounionists in the South!
But not all Southerners endured the sacrifices of the war . . . Many ultimately decided The Cause, whatever it was really for, wasn't worth dying for and they went home.
Except for all the slave owners who said that it was all about slavery, until they lost.
@@lancegauthier489 Amen. All you have to do is read the different states' Declarations of Secession, they all declare threats to slavery as the reason for secession, usually in the 1st or 2nd paragraph.
John Adams, George Washington, and fellow founders were, in fact, engaged in treason.
"All Confederates repudiate ... all accusations of fighting to preserve slavery". This statement can hardly be sourced from "thorough research". The Confederacy was indisputably founded on the preservation of slavery as documented in Confederate secesstionist writing.
and their constitution
How many Confederates owned slaves?
@williamcollins2782 , good question! While many of us are sympathetic to "states rights" issues and are aware of the trade injustices imposed on the southern states, the fact is slavery was the central issue.
i liked the last sentence: We became the most freest nation in the world
and became the strongest in the world bc. of the Union as one nation vs.
two weak nations, at least, i dink the South will be much weaker bc. of
the agrarian vs. industrial w more nat'l resources of the north n
bigger population.
Yet, w/o the Southern States, we won't have been able to help Europe against
the Germans in WWI and against the Germans n Japanese (two fronts of
vast distance apart) in WWII.
Alexander's explanation of the causes of the war are dead on. Even H.L. Mencken noted in his critique of The Gettysburg Address that the reason for the war was for self government, not for slavery. Instead of a civil war. Southerners thought of it as a war for independence. A continuation of the American Revolution. No one can deny the South was crippled by onerous tariffs and they rightly objected vehemently to them. Instead of compromise the government doubled down triggering secession which in itself was not prohibited in our Constitution.
Well sorry for you but the southern governments were nice enough to put in writing that it was over slavery. Especially you can thank Alex Stephens for the cornerstone speech
Sure they believed in self government
Unless you were black.
@@Grant25They definitely seceded over slavery. There is no doubt about that. You are absolutely correct.
But it’s also true that they believed they had the right of secession and pointed to the Declaration of Independence and the example of the Revolution as both justification and precedent.
History just like politics today is complicated.
Both yours and Porter's arguments are the post hoc excuses and justification for the rebellion. The rebellion was to retain the enslavement of Black African Americans, and the rebels accepted no compromise on that point.
I can deny the "South was crippled by onerous tarriffs". The South was crippled by dependence on agricultural commodities that had fluctuating values that required a coerced labor supply. Most of the economic disruption in the South was traceable to the speculative Cotton Bubble of the 1830s.
Why not secede prior to the 1860 elections? Why participate in an election if you will not abide the results?
Sd