The True Meaning Behind the Confederate Flag

[Tolkien R.R.J]

"The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history"
-Milan Hubl, Czek communist

"It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War, will be impressed by all influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, our maimed veterans as fit objects for their derision."
-Major General Patrick Cleburne, C.S.A. Jan. 2, 1864

“To tar the sacrifices of the Confederate soldier as simple acts of racism, and reduce the battle flag under which he fought to nothing more than the symbol of a racist heritage, is one of the great blasphemies of our modern age”.
-James Webb-Secretary of Navy And Assistant Secretary of Defense

Saint Andrews Cross Scotland

st patricks cross northern Ireland


The south were scotch-irish Christians and the X on the confederate flag is that of the St Andrew cross, and St Patricks cross of Scotland and northern Ireland. St Andrew was killed for his faith on an X shaped cross.

"The Confederate battle flag is based upon the national flag of Scotland. The national flag of Scotland is the cross of St. Andrew and the cross of St. Andrew is a symbol of the Christian faith and the heritage of the Celtic race… It was adopted consciously, purposefully, and deliberately…in order to display faith in the sovereign God of heaven and earth, faith in the providence of God, and the God of salvation."
-Pastor John Weaver-Former SCV National Chaplain



The Confederate Flag is it a Racist Flag?

“They [confederate flags] symbolize the bloodshed and the glory of nearly a thousand battles”
-John Gordon


“The flags of the Confederate States of America were very important and a matter of great pride to those citizens living in the Confederacy. They are also a matter of great pride for their descendants as part of their heritage and history.”
-Winston Churchill


What is known as “the confederate battle flag” is just that, a flag of a confederate army who's solders the majority were non slave owning. In every major engagement the army was in, it had non slave owners fighting against slave owners in the union army. Its purpose was to have a flag distinct from the union flag to avoid confusion in battle. It does not represent the government of the confederate states of America. That flag is often referred to as the stars and bars below.

The flag is only associated with racism because near the hundredth anniversary of the civil war the KKK started using the flag to gain members and give them a positive look. Before that the KKK used the “racist” american flag that had slavery during and after the civil war. Google in KKK and American flag for examples. Than type in KKK and confederate flag. You will notice the older pictures pre 1950's the KKK always used the american flag. Post 1950 the KKK started to use the confederate flag as well to give them a better image.

kkk american flag - Google Search


“…We must forevermore do honor to our heroic dead. We must forevermore cherish the sacred memories of those four terrible but glorious years of unequal strife. We must forevermore consecrate in our hearts our old battle flag of the Southern Cross – not now as a political symbol, but as the consecrated emblem of an heroic epoch. The people that forgets its heroic dead is already dying at the heart, and we believe we shall be truer and better citizens of the United States if we are true to our past.”
~ Confederate Veteran Rev. Randolph Harrison McKim



Blacks in Support of the Confederate Flag

At the time of the civil war tens of thousands of blacks willingly supported the confederacy in various ways, a few thousand even fought under the confederate flag as soldiers. See the following

To Live And Die In Dixie - Black Confederate Soldiers, Black Support For the Confederacy
To Live And Die In Dixie - Black Confederate Soldiers, Black Support For the Confederacy

Today many proud southern blacks support the confederate flag, here are a few examples.

Black Mississippi Confederate flag supporter dies when his car was forced off road | Daily Mail Online
Black Confederates
Predominantly Black Dallas Group Forms To Protect Confederate Monuments
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...confederate-monuments/?utm_term=.e02dbc71aa58

Long after the war many former confederates remained loyal to cause. These veterans were often buried with the confederate flag, and sometimes in there confederate uniforms. Often blacks would be the key speakers at veterans reunions and show there dedication and speak of their service as the most proud moment of their life. At funerals during and after the war, both master and slave mourned each other as dead family members. Speaking of his white fellow confederates, A former confederate and former slave Bill Yopp said “Tried and true friends and better friends you do not know.” A cemetery in cedar hill Georgia has a monument to slaves who fought for the confederacy that use to have confederate flag [they made them take it down] .

Confederate Flag and Diversity

Its also hard to maintain its a flag of white supremacy when whites, blacks, native Americans, Asians, Mexicans and Jews all fought as soldiers to defend the confederate flag. The south was a far more diverse region than the north or anywhere in the world at the time.


Why not the American Flag?

Why is not the american flag that had legal slavery up to and after the civil war not seen as a flag or racism or slavery? When america ended slavery by amendment both south and north voted for it and slavery was ended north and south at the same time. The slave trade was outlawed in the confederacy, yet under the American flag slave traders engaged in the trade for decades. Not once did a slave trading ship wave a confederate flag. Under the American flag great atrocities were committed against native Americans yet the confederacy was allied with most of the tribes and not once committed an atrocity against them. Many northern states would not even allow blacks into their states or rights to vote, marry whites, segregation etc.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Those who Wish to remove the Flag

“Any society which suppresses the heritage of its conquered minorities, prevents their history or denies them their symbols, has sown the seeds of their own destruction.”
Sir William Wallace, 1281

If they want unity and diversity, why attack a minority segment of the population? It will only result in division and fighting. The real reason they dislike the flag is it represents conservative Christianity and the last resistance to centralized power in America.

“Why doesn’t the Confederacy just fade away? Is it because we are irresistibly fascinated by catastrophic loss? Or is it something else? Is it because the Confederacy is to this day the greatest conservative resistance to federal authority in American history?”
-Professor David Blight

“The American public is increasingly being trained to view the CSA as a repulsive abomination because the CSA framers and their principles of government pose the most serious challenge to political centralization. Wielders of centralized power have little tolerance for those men and their decentralized principles.” -Marshall Derosa Redeeming American Democracy Lessons from the Confederate Constitution Pelican Press 2007



Question for Liberals

Assuming confederate statues represent racism, I would like to ask a few questions of liberals that seems odd to me. The majority of liberals are atheistic, moral relativist and evolutionist. Since all man evolved from random chemicals that got together for a survival advantage, and there is no God there can be no higher moral code or absolutes. This is why liberalism will be angry with Christians for saying there are absolutes right and wrongs such as abortion, gay marriage etc. To a moral relativist, there is no right or wrong.

"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music."
-Richard Dawkins, --Out of Eden, page 133

So given those assumptions often believed by the liberal. How can they turn around and say white supremacy is evil. To be clear as a christian I cant find any justification for white supremacy, but I appeal to the bible for justification. The moral relativist claims there is no higher authority or absolute right and wrong. So a white supremacists is just acting on his chemical reactions and just "dancing to his genes" by being what he is just as a homosexual is acting on his own genes. So if moral relativism is true, how can a liberal claim it is wrong in any way to be a Nazi [who were big government socialist]or racism? I would also like to mention it is the left that is obsessed with race and seeks to divide us.

How much more so can they also claim diversity and tolerance and yet be intolerant of a culture other than there own towards a different people in a different time to tare down statues of confederates? Are we not to seek understanding of other cultures instead of hatred and violence? are we no longer cultural relativist?

 

[Monk Brendan]

Actually, the Confederate battle flag was square. The naval jack was oblong.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Any society which suppresses the heritage of its conquered minorities, prevents their history or denies them their symbols, has sown the seeds of their own destruction.”
Sir William Wallace, 1281

This is an utterly fake quote.

The very ideas it expresses are outside of normal mediaeval thought, based on feudal relations between lords and vassals, or chief and his extended clan in Scotland. Speaking of 'conquered minorities' is very much alien to the mediaeval mind, who would only see subjects tied to their lord; or 'prevents their history' in a period with a shaky view of the past, in which Julius Caesar and David run around in mediaeval plate with coats of arms and armorial bearings; or 'denies their symbols' when the commonest way a conqueror showed ownership was to appropriate symbols, such as the English monarch quartering his arms with Fleur-de-lis of France or taking the stone of Scone.

Someone made up a quote and attributed it to William Wallace as a suitably heroic figure. Its ideas are anachronistic though, if not downright odd in the context. I'd be interested to see what source they claim this derives from. Probably was invented post Braveheart, as suitably Gibsonesque.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The Stars and Bars was the initial Confederate flag, before they later adopted the Stainless Banner and the Blood-dipped Banner - both of the latter having Battle Flags in the canton. Personally, I think the Stainless Banner is quite beautiful from an aesthetic vexillological viewpoint.

I don't know how much it has to do with the St. Andrews cross though. It was the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia after all, so as far as I know, not particularly well known for saltires. Florida's saltire has more to do with the Burgundian connections of Charles V than anything.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

This is an utterly fake quote.

Could you support? I am not saying well known or common quotes cannot be genuine[ i have studied Lincoln] but i need more than your statement.

The very ideas it expresses are outside of normal mediaeval thought, based on feudal relations between lords and vassals, or chief and his extended clan in Scotland. Speaking of 'conquered minorities' is very much alien to the mediaeval mind, who would only see subjects tied to their lord; or 'prevents their history' in a period with a shaky view of the past, in which Julius Caesar and David run around in mediaeval plate with coats of arms and armorial bearings; or 'denies their symbols' when the commonest way a conqueror showed ownership was to appropriate symbols, such as the English monarch quartering his arms with Fleur-de-lis of France or taking the stone of Scone.

Someone made up a quote and attributed it to William Wallace as a suitably heroic figure. Its ideas are anachronistic though, if not downright odd in the context. I'd be interested to see what source they claim this derives from. Probably was invented post Braveheart, as suitably Gibsonesque.

I dont disagree wholly with what you have said. I am in the process of learning of medieval politics. I will dig into the original source as it came from a book.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Could you support? I am not saying well known or common quotes cannot be genuine[ i have studied Lincoln] but i need more than your statement.




I dont disagree wholly with what you have said. I am in the process of learning of medieval politics. I will dig into the original source as it came from a book.

I did support it by explaining thereafter, how nothing whatsoever within that quote, has anything to do with mediaeval thought at all. All the ideas it expresses; a people's history, the idea of a minority as a group, suppression of symbolism as a function of seeking conformity or centralisation of control; are all post-mediaeval ideas. The chance of this being a real mediaeval quote is effectively zero - akin to ascribing the quote "Capitalism is better than Communism" to Cicero, or “Neocolonialism is bad" to Shaka Zulu.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Could you support? I am not saying well known or common quotes cannot be genuine[ i have studied Lincoln] but i need more than your statement.




I dont disagree wholly with what you have said. I am in the process of learning of medieval politics. I will dig into the original source as it came from a book.

To expand further on what I was saying:

Mediaeval countries aren't states in the modern sense (which only arose after Westphalia) nor nations. Symbols didn't belong to a country, but to a family in an heraldric sense, to which the country owed allegiance. Thus the three lions of the Plantagenets or the Fleur-de-lis of the Capetians. There were no national symbols or flags, only your allegiance to your local liege lord, with webs of such feudal alliances ebbing and flowing around roughly territorial units. For instance, for much of the high mediaeval period, Aquitaine owed allegiance to English Kings via Eleanor of Aquitane's marriage, but was a fief of West Francia (ie France). We see Edward the Black Prince adopting the sigil of John of Bohemia after Poitiers for instance, which is why the Prince of Wales has a German motto.

You can see this with people too. Robert the Bruce was of a Norman family that had made its way north. The Scottish Lowlander and Northumbrian nobles often held lands of both the English and Scottish kings, so then just picked a side when war broke out. Another good example is Enguerraud de Coucy, who was a major noble of both France and England - being Ingelram, duke of Bedford and the king's son-in-law in the latter. He had to choose to be French in the hundred years war, but could easily have been seen as English. The hundred years war, by severing this dual relationships on local levels by prolonged warfare, in a sense created English and French identity. This is also when English and French flags became differentiated, when a supra-feudal identity beyong the web of fealty arose.

William Wallace was of this tradition, and such divided loyalty lasted longer North of Yorkshire than elsewhere - ever heard of Border Reavers? Even today, Berwick is both Scottish and English. The idea of safeguarding Scottish symbols is silly in this context, and makes no sense. The Rampant Lion of Scotland was originally the coat of arms of the House of Dunkeld, and when Margeret of Norway passed away, those claiming her inheritance via family connections, thus continued to use it to emphasise this. Robert the Bruce (the elder, not the king but his father) himself had been both a constable of England and Scotland. Edward I's claim on Scotland derived from his using the request to arbitrate the succession, into a claim of allegiance owed - and it is this that the Scots rejected at Arbroath. In the same way that the hundred years war created entities and identities like 'France' and 'England', the Scottish wars of Independance created Scottishness as a superstructure over rambling local allegiances.

Likewise, there was no such thing as history as we understand the term. This arose again at the Renaissance. The middle ages had vague ideas of Epic, more akin to a popular Robin Hood movie than a history. They were broadly grouped as the Matters of Britain, France and Rome. This is King Arthur, Roland, Brutus of Troy and such. No suppression of history would even be contemplated - if anything, Edward I would point to ideas like Bretwaldas in Bede or King Arthur to justify his right as High King. This is why he stole the stone of Scone.

Frankly, that quote completely jars with the mediaeval period and is very incongruous. The assumptions of identity it makes simply does not exist, and is clearly written by someone versed in ideas of Peoples, Nations, States, and is most definitely post-Westphalian thought. I'd wager that the implied belief structure of the quote likely did not exist till at least the 18th century at the earliest, not the 13th.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

To expand further on what I was saying:

Mediaeval countries aren't states in the modern sense (which only arose after Westphalia) nor nations. Symbols didn't belong to a country, but to a family in an heraldric sense, to which the country owed allegiance. Thus the three lions of the Plantagenets or the Fleur-de-lis of the Capetians. There were no national symbols or flags, only your allegiance to your local liege lord, with webs of such feudal alliances ebbing and flowing around roughly territorial units. For instance, for much of the high mediaeval period, Aquitaine owed allegiance to English Kings via Eleanor of Aquitane's marriage, but was a fief of West Francia (ie France). We see Edward the Black Prince adopting the sigil of John of Bohemia after Poitiers for instance, which is why the Prince of Wales has a German motto.

You can see this with people too. Robert the Bruce was of a Norman family that had made its way north. The Scottish Lowlander and Northumbrian nobles often held lands of both the English and Scottish kings, so then just picked a side when war broke out. Another good example is Enguerraud de Coucy, who was a major noble of both France and England - being Ingelram, duke of Bedford and the king's son-in-law in the latter. He had to choose to be French in the hundred years war, but could easily have been seen as English. The hundred years war, by severing this dual relationships on local levels by prolonged warfare, in a sense created English and French identity. This is also when English and French flags became differentiated, when a supra-feudal identity beyong the web of fealty arose.

William Wallace was of this tradition, and such divided loyalty lasted longer North of Yorkshire than elsewhere - ever heard of Border Reavers? Even today, Berwick is both Scottish and English. The idea of safeguarding Scottish symbols is silly in this context, and makes no sense. The Rampant Lion of Scotland was originally the coat of arms of the House of Dunkeld, and when Margeret of Norway passed away, those claiming her inheritance via family connections, thus continued to use it to emphasise this. Robert the Bruce (the elder, not the king but his father) himself had been both a constable of England and Scotland. Edward I's claim on Scotland derived from his using the request to arbitrate the succession, into a claim of allegiance owed - and it is this that the Scots rejected at Arbroath. In the same way that the hundred years war created entities and identities like 'France' and 'England', the Scottish wars of Independance created Scottishness as a superstructure over rambling local allegiances.

Likewise, there was no such thing as history as we understand the term. This arose again at the Renaissance. The middle ages had vague ideas of Epic, more akin to a popular Robin Hood movie than a history. They were broadly grouped as the Matters of Britain, France and Rome. This is King Arthur, Roland, Brutus of Troy and such. No suppression of history would even be contemplated - if anything, Edward I would point to ideas like Bretwaldas in Bede or King Arthur to justify his right as High King. This is why he stole the stone of Scone.

Frankly, that quote completely jars with the mediaeval period and is very incongruous. The assumptions of identity it makes simply does not exist, and is clearly written by someone versed in ideas of Peoples, Nations, States, and is most definitely post-Westphalian thought. I'd wager that the implied belief structure of the quote likely did not exist till at least the 18th century at the earliest, not the 13th.

I think it a great point thanks.

 

[tas8831]

"The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history"
-Milan Hubl, Czek communist

So, not flying the stars and bars, and not having shrines to the war for slavery is "erasing history"?

The Reasons for Secession

Slavery
1) Each declaration makes the defense of slavery a clear objective.

Read More »

2) Some states argue that slavery should be expanded.

Read More »

3) Abolitionism is attacked as a method of inciting violent uprisings.

Read More »

4) Mississippi and Georgia point out that slavery accounts for a huge portion of the Southern economy.

Read More »​

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

From various states, in no particular order (all taken from the above link):

"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

"While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen."


"She [Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy."

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."


And so on....


But no, do go on and explain to us all how the Civil War was a noble cause and had nothing to do with slavery...

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

So, not flying the stars and bars, and not having shrines to the war for slavery is "erasing history"?

The Reasons for Secession

Slavery
1) Each declaration makes the defense of slavery a clear objective.

Read More »

2) Some states argue that slavery should be expanded.

Read More »

3) Abolitionism is attacked as a method of inciting violent uprisings.

Read More »

4) Mississippi and Georgia point out that slavery accounts for a huge portion of the Southern economy.

Read More »​

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

From various states, in no particular order (all taken from the above link):

"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

"While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen."


"She [Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy."

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."


And so on....


But no, do go on and explain to us all how the Civil War was a noble cause and had nothing to do with slavery...

Your False history aside, your late to the game.

I'll Take My Stand – Causes Of Southern Secession-The Upper South- American Civil war
I'll Take My Stand – Causes Of Southern Secession-The Cotton States


everything you brought up dealt with on those threads. Its one thing to swallow the propaganda, its another to than present it as truth.

 

[USincognito]

To expand further on what I was saying:

Mediaeval countries aren't states in the modern sense (which only arose after Westphalia) nor nations. Symbols didn't belong to a country, but to a family in an heraldric sense, to which the country owed allegiance. Thus the three lions of the Plantagenets or the Fleur-de-lis of the Capetians. There were no national symbols or flags, only your allegiance to your local liege lord, with webs of such feudal alliances ebbing and flowing around roughly territorial units. For instance, for much of the high mediaeval period, Aquitaine owed allegiance to English Kings via Eleanor of Aquitane's marriage, but was a fief of West Francia (ie France). We see Edward the Black Prince adopting the sigil of John of Bohemia after Poitiers for instance, which is why the Prince of Wales has a German motto.

You can see this with people too. Robert the Bruce was of a Norman family that had made its way north. The Scottish Lowlander and Northumbrian nobles often held lands of both the English and Scottish kings, so then just picked a side when war broke out. Another good example is Enguerraud de Coucy, who was a major noble of both France and England - being Ingelram, duke of Bedford and the king's son-in-law in the latter. He had to choose to be French in the hundred years war, but could easily have been seen as English. The hundred years war, by severing this dual relationships on local levels by prolonged warfare, in a sense created English and French identity. This is also when English and French flags became differentiated, when a supra-feudal identity beyong the web of fealty arose.

William Wallace was of this tradition, and such divided loyalty lasted longer North of Yorkshire than elsewhere - ever heard of Border Reavers? Even today, Berwick is both Scottish and English. The idea of safeguarding Scottish symbols is silly in this context, and makes no sense. The Rampant Lion of Scotland was originally the coat of arms of the House of Dunkeld, and when Margeret of Norway passed away, those claiming her inheritance via family connections, thus continued to use it to emphasise this. Robert the Bruce (the elder, not the king but his father) himself had been both a constable of England and Scotland. Edward I's claim on Scotland derived from his using the request to arbitrate the succession, into a claim of allegiance owed - and it is this that the Scots rejected at Arbroath. In the same way that the hundred years war created entities and identities like 'France' and 'England', the Scottish wars of Independance created Scottishness as a superstructure over rambling local allegiances.

Likewise, there was no such thing as history as we understand the term. This arose again at the Renaissance. The middle ages had vague ideas of Epic, more akin to a popular Robin Hood movie than a history. They were broadly grouped as the Matters of Britain, France and Rome. This is King Arthur, Roland, Brutus of Troy and such. No suppression of history would even be contemplated - if anything, Edward I would point to ideas like Bretwaldas in Bede or King Arthur to justify his right as High King. This is why he stole the stone of Scone.

Frankly, that quote completely jars with the mediaeval period and is very incongruous. The assumptions of identity it makes simply does not exist, and is clearly written by someone versed in ideas of Peoples, Nations, States, and is most definitely post-Westphalian thought. I'd wager that the implied belief structure of the quote likely did not exist till at least the 18th century at the earliest, not the 13th.

Half those people you mentioned are my ancestors.

 

[tas8831]

Your False history aside

Got to love the rightist white Nationalist Christian fallback positron - "If it does not support my preferred position, it is fake news. Trump says so."

But sure - the actual documents used by the pro-slavery traitor states to justify leaving the union is 'false history.'

, your late to the game.

My what? See, "your" refers to something belonging to me.

Pity that I caught you plagiarizing and misrepresenting all those evolution quotes that you ran off to prop up White Fascist nationalism with your sad historical revisionism.


Creationists caught lying for their religion - quote bombing

Evolutionist Caught Lying for Their Religion and has Evolution Been Demonstrated


So perfect that religious extremists are not only anti-science, but pro-slavery, too.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Got to love the rightist white Nationalist Christian fallback positron - "If it does not support my preferred position, it is fake news. Trump says so."

But sure - the actual documents used by the pro-slavery traitor states to justify leaving the union is 'false history.'



My what? See, "your" refers to something belonging to me.

Pity that I caught you plagiarizing and misrepresenting all those evolution quotes that you ran off to prop up White Fascist nationalism with your sad historical revisionism.


Creationists caught lying for their religion - quote bombing

Evolutionist Caught Lying for Their Religion and has Evolution Been Demonstrated


So perfect that religious extremists are not only anti-science, but pro-slavery, too.

I am not sure what your axe to grind and why you make so many false assumptions about me with no logical reason to hold those assumptions. In fact it tells me more about you than me. Nor am i interested in your claims on another subject and what you post after I leave.

This thread is on what is historically true or not. Your post was historically false propaganda so yes "t does not support my preferred position" because my preferred position is what is historically true Unlike what seems to drive your posts, your preferred political position. When people make baseless claims of others their very claims are almost universally true of themselves.


So lets test your claims and posts. How did your claims stack up to what is historically true on the causes of southern secession?

I'll Take My Stand – Causes Of Southern Secession-The Upper South- American Civil war
I'll Take My Stand – Causes Of Southern Secession-The Cotton States


not very well as we see just the reason for the personal attacks and emotional responses.


Question begging epithet

when someone imports bias often emotional language to support a claim "ignorant" "dishonest" "stupid" "gullible" or other disparaging remarks Insults are the lowest level of debate and when you resort to it, it suggests you have little else to work with.


ad hominem
attack on person not argument


A red herring fallacy is where someone tries to divert your attention away from the subject or argument by introducing a new topic. This is a defense technique often employed when the person realizes you have a logical and sound argument forming. This can even develop as an unconscious technique employed by one who wishes to protect their beliefs from any scrutiny, truly a strong self delusion

Saul Alinsky’s RULES FOR RADICALS:Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions … Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.



Now if you wish to engage in such a debate [we both know by your post you do not] I would love to do so as it would expose who has history as the authority, and who uses propaganda to support their political agenda.


As for the claims of evolution I will leave my threads as they are to prove as they did [while i was on them to defend against claims]


Evolutionist Caught Lying for Their Religion- Fossils
Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the Fossil Record
Evolutionist Caught Lying for Their Religion and has Evolution Been Demonstrated
Science Only Works in a Biblical Worldview- Evolution Cannot Account for Science
Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth


Two more threads on evolution and creation are coming soon so I hope you join them. However I offer you a special debate offer. Who is anti-science, evolutionist or creationist. You stated


"So perfect that religious extremists are not only anti-science, but pro-slavery, too."

Of course you have shown you need no justification to make a claim [that i am pro slavery- the csa flag represents slavery etc] but I would like to offer this debate.

"Can an evolutionist justify the position that slavery is a moral wrong from an atheistic worldview"

I offer both of those debates to you in a 1v1 situation we can do it on multiple forums of your choosing. But on this thread, I offer you to defend your position that the south left over slavery. One or all three I would be happy with.

 

[tas8831]

I am not sure what your axe to grind and why you make so many false assumptions about me with no logical reason to hold those assumptions.

My assumptions, so-called, are conclusions based on your posting history.

In fact it tells me more about you than me. Nor am i interested in your claims on another subject and what you post after I leave.

Of course - you got your hat handed to you when your dishonesty and incompetence were exposed. Pretty typical righty stuff.

This thread is on what is historically true or not. Your post was historically false propaganda

Sorry, the mere say-so of a pro-confederacy (i.e., pro-treason and pro=slavery) historical revisionist do not interest me. I am just hoping that if there are any sensible, honest people reading, they will read the actual documents and see that the claims of the 'noble cause' and 'states' rights' revisionism are just the sour grapes of whiny losers.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

My assumptions, so-called, are conclusions based on your posting history.

Of course - you got your hat handed to you when your dishonesty and incompetence were exposed. Pretty typical righty stuff.



Sorry, the mere say-so of a pro-confederacy (i.e., pro-treason and pro=slavery) historical revisionist do not interest me. I am just hoping that if there are any sensible, honest people reading, they will read the actual documents and see that the claims of the 'noble cause' and 'states' rights' revisionism are just the sour grapes of whiny losers.

I think rather people see your unwillingness to support, defend, or debate your grand claims as well as your red herrings as yet another poster full of the sour grapes of whiny losers.

 

[tas8831]

I think rather people see your unwillingness to support, defend, or debate your grand claims as well as your red herrings as yet another poster full of the sour grapes of whiny losers.

I did support my position with quotes from and links to the traitor states' OWN EXPLANATIONS for why they left the union - and I didn't even have to plagiarize or spam-troll like you do!

The whiny loser confederate traitors want to ignore/dismiss/equivocate on all that - stupidly claiming it is 'fake news' and the usual right-wing idiocy, but the facts are there to see.

The pro-slavery traitor states' OWN WORDS let the cat out of the bag, and modern day pro-confederates just want to ignore it all.

Sad.


From the state of Texas:

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.​

But you whiny losers go on claiming that slavery had nothing to do with it... Keep lying to yourselves and worshipping traitors.

I'm done with the likes of you. Keep spreading your plagiarized spam revisionist nonsense to the hate-filled gullible.

 

[tas8831]

This thread is on what is historically true or not. Your post was historically false propaganda

Following those Alinsky rules, I see.

So lets test your claims and posts. How did your claims stack up to what is historically true on the causes of southern secession?

How did the traitor states' OWN CLAIMS support my position compared to your historical revisionist pap? Golly, I don't know...

Question begging epithet

when someone imports bias often emotional language to support a claim "ignorant" "dishonest" "stupid" "gullible" or other disparaging remarks Insults are the lowest level of debate and when you resort to it, it suggests you have little else to work with.

Another one that does not know what 'question begging' means. Look it up, plagiarist.

ad hominem
attack on person not argument

That I have documented your plagiarism and doctoring of quotes is a bonus - but I did not use your own documented dishonesty AS an argument, thus there is no ad hominem.

Poor desperate creationist confederate...

A red herring fallacy is where someone tries to divert your attention away from the subject or argument by introducing a new topic.

Your dishonest posting history is not irrelevant.

Saul Alinsky’s RULES FOR RADICALS:Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions … Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Which of Alinsky's rules covers labeling truths you do not like as "fake news" or "false history"?

Which rule dictates ignoring the actual reasons given by the southern confederate traitor state's governments in favor of dopey revisionism?

As for the claims of evolution I will leave my threads as they are to prove as they did

They proved your dishonesty more than anything. I can't quite understand how you claim them as victories.
All those spam-trolling plagiarized quotes and such - so unimpressive.

Evolutionist Caught Lying for Their Religion and has Evolution Been Demonstrated

Creationists caught lying for their religion - quote bombing


One's posting history is informative. One that frequently engages in plagiarism and quote-doctoring should not be trusted.

Two more threads on evolution and creation are coming soon so I hope you join them.

Oh, great - it will be fun to see who you plagiarize this time, and how little you can actually defend your plagiarized arguments.

However I offer you a special debate offer. Who is anti-science, evolutionist or creationist. You stated


"So perfect that religious extremists are not only anti-science, but pro-slavery, too."

Of course you have shown you need no justification to make a claim [that i am pro slavery- the csa flag represents slavery etc] but I would like to offer this debate.

By being pro-confederacy, you are de facto pro-slavery since the confederacy was premised on their desire to keep slavery intact. Your useless quote-bombing rants that you cannot actually discuss show that you are anti-science.

"Can an evolutionist justify the position that slavery is a moral wrong from an atheistic worldview"

That is not a scientific question, slavery-lover. Seeing as how the confederates used Scripture to justify their white supremacy, and that the bible offers no condemnation of slavery as such, you have lost before you have begun.

I offer both of those debates to you in a 1v1 situation we can do it on multiple forums of your choosing. But on this thread, I offer you to defend your position that the south left over slavery. One or all three I would be happy with.

I don't care to 'debate' with a quote-bombing plagiarist and pro-slavery, pro-treason confederate.

I provided documented claims of the treason states' governments as to how important slavery was to them.
That you deny this is typical.

I look forward to your next spam fest - I'm sure it will as easy as before to find altered quotes and plagiarism, and it will be fun to see you flail as you try, feebly, to actually discuss the subjects that you copy-paste about.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

I did support my position with quotes from and links to the traitor states' OWN EXPLANATIONS for why they left the union - and I didn't even have to plagiarize or spam-troll like you do!

The whiny loser confederate traitors want to ignore/dismiss/equivocate on all that - stupidly claiming it is 'fake news' and the usual right-wing idiocy, but the facts are there to see.

The pro-slavery traitor states' OWN WORDS let the cat out of the bag, and modern day pro-confederates just want to ignore it all.

Sad.


From the state of Texas:

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.​

But you whiny losers go on claiming that slavery had nothing to do with it... Keep lying to yourselves and worshipping traitors.

I'm done with the likes of you. Keep spreading your plagiarized spam revisionist nonsense to the hate-filled gullible.

This is why I said its one thing to swallow the propaganda and another to spread it like it is truth. It is also customary to understand proper history by knowing context and allowing all documents to be herd. That is why I stated what is true, your claims can be held if we accept history as our authority rather than our preconceived bias and political desires. It would also help if you had an interest in truth or studied the causes of the war rather than google and believe what you prefer.



I'll Take My Stand – Causes Of Southern Secession-The Upper South

“This consolidation of the states has been the obiet of several men in this country for some time past. Weather such a change can ever be effected in any manner whether it can be effected without convulsions and civil wars, whether such a change will not totally destroy the liberties of this country time can only determine.”
-Richard Henry Lee 1787

“The states of the deep south might have left the union because of slavery, but the upper south...did not...Lincoln waged war in order to create a consolidated, centralized state or empire. The south seceded for numerous reasons, but perhaps the most important one was that it wanted no part in such a system”
-Thomas J Dilorenzo The Real Lincoln

“If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity.”
- Alexander Stephens The Vice-President of the Confederacy

There was two major successions from the union. The original seven “Cotton states” of AL, MS,TX,SC,FL,GA,LAand later the upper south secession of VA, NC, TENN, ARK, Pro south MO and KY. The upper south states of VA, NC, Tenn and Ark alone had a larger free population than the deep south representing the majority of the future confederacy. There was a difference in general between the The original seven seceding “cotton states” of the deep south, and of the remaining upper south's causes of secession. The upper south either turned down voting on secession, or voted against secession when the deep south left the union and were willing to stay in the union.

“The Majority sentiment in the upper south had been unionist until Lincolns call for troops....Upper south, which had cried equally against coercion as succession”
-E. merton Coulter The confederate States of America Louisiana State University Press

When historians and textbooks talk of the reasons for secession, they almost unanimous point to the cotton states and sadly, the upper south is almost always ignored.

Lincolns Call For Volunteers/ Consent of the Governed/ State Sovereignty

“The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State.-the one for liberty in the union of the States, the other for liberty in the independence of the States.”
-John B Gordon Confederate General Reminiscences of the Civil War

“Lincolns republican party was determined to use coercive means to secure a centralized national system of government, a system incompatible with the compact theory of the union.”
-Marhsall Derosa Redeeming American Democracy Lessons From the Confederate Constitution pelican Press 2007

The single most important event that caused the upper south to join the confederacy was Lincolns call for volunteers to “suppress” the seven cotton states of the confederacy. Lincoln spoke loud by his actions when he called for volunteers to invade the confederacy of the deep south. His opinion was not that America was a collection of sovereign self governing States joined in a voluntary union by a constitution the compact theory, but a centralized nation or empire dictating to the states. He made it clear the deep south could not self govern themselves but were subject to their master the federal government. Lincoln in his inaugural address stated the union created the states, not the states ratifying the union [nationalist high federalist view] thus the power and authority lay with the federal government and not with the states.

“Northern States of a political school which has persistently claimed that the government thus formed was not a compact between States, but was in effect a national government, set up above and over the States...The creature has been exalted above its creators; the principals have been made subordinate to the agent appointed by themselves.”
-Jefferson Davis Message to confederate Congress April 29, 1861

The upper south and many in the north for saw Lincolns call for volunteers against the cotton states as a major violation of the constitution, a violation of those states sovereignty, and a main cause for secession. For example

“opposing secession changes the nature of government from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism were one part of the people are slaves”
-New York Journal of commerce 1/12/61

“The great principles embodied by Jefferson in the declaration is... that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed” Therefore if the southern states wish to secede, “they have a clear right to do so”
-New York tribune 2/5/61

Secession is “the very germ of liberty...the right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state”
-Kenosha Wisconsin Democrat 1/11/61

“the leading and most influncial papers of the union believe that any state of the union has a right to secede”
-Davenport Iowa Democrat and news 11/17/60

The southern states and many in the north [and the majority through American history] saw themselves as a collection of sovereign states joined by a contract [The constitution] and if that contract was violated or not upheld, it could, and should be discarded. When the cotton states felt there contract was violated by the federal government, they felt they had every right to leave.

“That however wrongfully any state might resume its Independence without just cause, the only remedy was conciliation, and not force, that therefore the coercion of a sovereign state was unlawful, mischievous, and must be resisted, there Virginia took her stand”
-R L Dabney a defense of Virginia and the South 1867

“[upper south]Forced to chose between Lincolns demand and what they believed to be morally correct and Honorable...seceded as well”
-Brevin Alexander Historian Professor of History at Longwood University

Most both north and south felt no war would come from what was seen by many as a legal right to secession by sovereign states. To the upper south this was a war of self government of sovereign states vs a federal government that was willing to use military force to control its populous by forcing the states to stay in the union . We would no longer be a self governing populous and collection of states but a nation controlled by a powerful centralized federal dictator. The south held to the Jeffersonian view of the union best described in the 1852 democrat platform and the Kentucky resolutions by Thomas Jefferson in 1798 and the Virginia resolutions by James Madison of 1800 that of a decentralized union of states the compact theory and the majority view in the united states before the civil war.

The war “Destroyed voluntary union of the founders and mad all Americans servants rather than masters of their own government”
-Thomas Dilorenzo author of The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked

"What we call liberty our founders called bondage...we have not freed the slaves we have extended the plantation, know, we are all slaves"
-Peter Marshall JR The Great War Debate

“Hapless would be the condition of these states if their only alternative lay between submission to a government of self construed, or, in other words, unlimited powers and the certainty of coercion.”
-J.K Spauling State Sovereignty and the Doctrine of Cohesion 1860

This also confirmed many southerners fear that Lincoln and the “radical” republicans would drastically transform the American republic. This is why many in the south saw the American civil war as their second war for independence.

“Southerners would have told you they were fighting for self government. They believed the gathering of power in Washington was against them… When they entered into that Federation they certainly would never have entered into it if they hadn’t believed it would be possible to get out. And when the time came that they wanted to get out, they thought they had every right”
-Shelby Foote

Many in the north recognized that this war was one of self governing states vs a controlling central federal government. Before being deported by Lincoln, A northern politician saw Lincolns war and purpose of the war as to

“Overthrow the present form of Federal-republican government, and to establish a strong centralized government in its stead...national banks, bankrupt laws, a vast and permanent public debt, high tariffs, heavy direct taxation, enormous expenditure, gigantic and stupendous peculation . . . No more state lines, no more state governments, but a consolidated monarchy or vast centralized military despotism.” later saying “instead of crushing out the rebellion,” the “effort has been to crush out the spirit of liberty” in the Northern states.
-Clement L. Vallandigham D-Ohio NC spoke of the Reason for Lincolns war 1863


Preserving the Constitutional Republic

“The South's concept of republicanism had not changed in three-quarters of a century; the North's had. With complete sincerity the South fought to preserve its version of the republic of the Founding Fathers--a government of limited powers"
-James M. McPherson Ante-bellum Southern Exceptionalism

"All that the South has ever desired was the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth."
-Gen. Robert E. Lee Quoted in The enduring Relevance of Robert E Lee

“It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”
-Confederate General Patrick Claiborne 1864

Lincoln and the republican party had set out to transform the union from a confederation of sovereign states, to a centralized nation controlled by the federal government. Lincoln sought to expand the central government far beyond the scope of what was intended by the founders or the constitution. He was dedicated to higher tariffs, centralization, national bank, internal improvements, protective tariffs, in support of the homestead act, [ in 1858 the northern vote supported 114 of 115 the south rejected 64 of 65] a pacific railroad act, and grants to states for agricultural and mechanical collages and other federal expansions. The republicans were openly big government nationalist with an overall disregard for the 9th/10th amendments and state sovereignty. Since the north had abandoned the Constitution and the republic replaced with a centralized democracy, the upper south had no choice but join the confederate Constitution witch maintained the original compact theory of the union.

“We quit the Union, but not the Constitution—this we have preserved. Secession from the old Union on the part of the Confederate States was founded upon the conviction that the time-honored Constitution of our fathers was about to be utterly undermined and destroyed. ”
- Hon. Alexander H. Stephens to the Virginia Secession Convention, April 23, 1861

“When the South raised its sword against the Union’s Flag, it was in defense of the Union’s Constitution.”
-Confederate General John B. Gordon

“Southerners persistently claim that their rebellion is for the purpose of preserving this form of government”
-Private John Harper 17 Maine regiment

“I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it.”
-Jefferson Davis

It was commonly believed in the south, that it was the north that should secede. As Henry Wise of Virginia said “Logically the union belongs to those who have kept, not those who have broken, its covenants...the north should do the seceding for the south represented more truly the nation which the federal government had set up in 1789.” They saw the growing majority of the north interfering with their culture within their states and violating the constitution. They feared democracy would rule and mod rule would take over America. So they wished to restore America to its original Constitution republic of confederated states as originally created to safeguard individuals liberty from mob rule and democracy. To see the effects of this and why states rights and states sovereignty were so vital to our union, see here

From Union to Empire- The Political Effects of the Civil war

From Union to Empire The Political Effects of the Civil war

“If they (the North) prevail, the whole character of the Government will be changed, and instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent States, we shall have a central despotism, with the notion of States forever abolished, deriving its powers from the will, and shaping its policy according to the wishes, of a numerical majority of the people; we shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresponsible democracy. The Government does not now recognize itself as an ordinance of God...They are now fighting the battle of despotism. They have put their Constitution under their feet; they have annulled its most sacred provisions; The future fortunes of our children, and of this continent, would then be determined by a tyranny which has no parallel in history.”
-Dr. James Henly Thornwell of South Carolina our danger and our duty 1862

“If the Confederate States, ever had any doubt as to the necessity of a separation from the people of the North, that doubt would be removed by the recklessness with which they allow their own liberties to be trampled on. They appear to have no idea of free Government. Those necessary restraints on power — those nicely adjusted balances, by which justice and liberty are secured in a free government, are not understood.”
-Report on the confederate committee of foreign affairs 1861

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

State Secession Documents

“Under the favor of Divine Providence, we hope to perpetuate the principles of our revolutionary fathers”
-Jefferson Davis Inaugural Address Richmond 1862

Each of the upper south states made it clear by their actions and words that Lincolns call for volunteers, state sovereignty, and self government, were the major cause of secession.


Virginia


“The principle now in contest between north and south is simply that of state sovereignty”
-Richmond Examiner Sep 11 1862

“A union that can be only maintained by swords and bayonets... has no charm for me”
-Robert E Lee

“I had rather be a private in Virginia's army than a general in any army to coerce her.”
-Jeb Stuart quoted in Jeb Stuart the last Cavalier by Burke Davis

After the secession of South Carolina Virginia stayed faithful to the union and worked to bring the deep south back into the union, yet on January 7 1861 Virginia passed a anti-coercion resolution by a vote of 112-5 describing the right of secession and of state sovereignty. They would oppose any attempt at cohesion by the federal government and “we will resists the same by all the means in our power.” Warning the federal government not to coercion of the deep south. Than on April 4th 1861 voted by a 2-1 margin to stay in the union. After Lincolns call for volunteers Virginia voters gathered again and by a vote of 126,000 to 20,400 Virginia left the union making good on their promise. In the minds of Virginians, that reason was Lincolns call to volunteers and the violation of state sovereignty.

“”This result has been foreseen since the beginning of the week. As soon as it was known, that it was the intention of the northern president to usurp war making powers, and wage war against sovereign states of the confederacy [deep south] and that Virginia was called on to contribute men and money....no one doubted what her action would be...when the union became an engine for oppression...she could not hesitate to throw herself on the side of freedom.”
-Richmond Whig Editorial April 19,1861 Sic Semper Tyrannis State Independence

“”Let us consider for a moment the results of a consolidated government, resting on force, as proposed by the dominate party at the north....a consolidated despotism, upheld by the sword and cemented by fear....now it [the union ] has been seized upon by a sectional party, it is claimed that its powers are omnipotent, it s will absolute, and it must and will maintain its supremacy, in spite of states and people, at the point of the sword...it is organizing fleets and armies to wage war upon the authors of its being [the states].”
-Richmond Whig Editorial A Government of Force April 10 1861

Governor John Letcher was opposed to secession until Lincolns call for volunteers when he became firmly a secessionist.

“the Constitution of the United States has invested Congress with the sole power "to declare war," and until such declaration is made, the President has no authority to call for an extraordinary force to wage offensive war against any foreign Power: and whereas, on the 15th inst., the President of the United States, in plain violation of the Constitution, issued a proclamation calling for a force of seventy-five thousand men, to cause the laws of the United states to be duly executed over a people who are no longer a part of the Union, and in said proclamation threatens to exert this unusual force to compel obedience to his mandates; and whereas, the General Assembly of Virginia, by a majority approaching to entire unanimity, declared at its last session that the State of Virginia would consider such an exertion of force as a virtual declaration of war, to be resisted by all the power at the command of Virginia; and subsequently the Convention now in session, representing the sovereignty of this State, has reaffirmed in substance the same policy... and it is believed that the influences which operate to produce this proclamation against the seceded States will be brought to bear upon this commonwealth, if she should exercise her undoubted right to resume the powers granted by her people, and it is due to the honor of Virginia that an improper exercise of force against her people should be repelled.”
-Governor of Virginia JOHN LETCHER”.
http://www.nytimes.com/1861/04/22/n...-secretary-cameron-state-affairs-norfolk.html

Virginia did not give a lengthy declaration of why it left the union [The voting showed already] just a short ordinance of secession and a mention of Lincolns call for men.


Virginia ordinance of secession

“Declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States” [Cotton States]

“Had Lincoln not made war upon the south,[cotton states] Virginia would not have left the union”
-William Thomas Poague Confederate artilleryman


Arkansas

“This convention pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshaled to carry out this inhuman design; and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas”
-Arkansas causes of secession

Before Lincolns call for volunteers the people of Arkansas voted to stay in the union by a vote of 23,600 to 17,900. Than on March 4 1861 the Arkansas convention voted 40-35 to stay in the union with the president of the convention a unionist. On May 6th 1861 after Lincolns call for men, Arkansas regathered and this time only 5 votes went against secession, 4 of them would relent and join the movement. The before and after votes, as well as the Arkansas declaration for secession give the clear reasons for joining the confederacy.


“The people of this commonwealth are free men not slaves, and will defend to the last extremity, their honor, lives, and property, against northern mendacity and usurpation”
-Arkansas Governor Henry Rector Response to Lincolns call for Volunteers


North Carolina

North Carolina will “Be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people”
-John Ellis Governor North Carolina

Having previously turned down even voting on secession, North Carolina responded to Lincolns call for volunteers by than unanimously adopted a secession ordinance, showing the impact it had on the state.

“Lincoln has made a call for 75,000 men to be employed for the invasion of the peaceful homes of the South, and for the violent subversion of the liberties of a free people.. whereas, this high-handed act of tyrannical outrage is not only in violation of all constitutional law, in utter disregard of every sentiment of humanity and Christian civilization, and conceived in a spirit of aggression unparalleled by any act of recorded history, but is a direct step towards the subjugation of the whole South, and the conversion of a free Republic, inherited from our fathers, into a military despotism, to be established by worse than foreign enemies on the ruins of our once glorious Constitution of Equal Rights. Now, therefore, I, John W. Ellis, Governor of the State of North-Carolina, for these extraordinary causes... in defense of the sovereignty of North-Carolina and of the rights of the South, becomes now the duty of all.the 17th Day of April, A. D., 1861, and in the eight-fifth year of our independence.
-JOHN W. ELLIS Governor north Carolina
LEARN NC has been archived


Tennessee

“Tennessee will not Furnish a man for purposes of coercion, but 50,000 if necessary for the defense of our rights, and those of our southern brothers”
-Isham Harris Tennessee Governor

On February the 9th Tennessee voters turned down secession by a 4-1 margin. However after Lincolns call to volunteers Governor Isham Harris wrote President Lincoln saying if the federal government was going to “coerce” the seceded states into returning, Tennessee had no choice but to join its Southern neighbors. Harris recalled the Tennessee legislature on May 6 for another vote this time to join the confederacy. Than on June 8 voters approved the measure by a 2-1 margin.

Kentucky

Kentucky originally acted on its sovereignty and remained neutral, however events forced it to join the war. The official Kentucky government was pro north by about about a 3-1 margin but chose to keep its neutrality. However there was gaining support for the south when Lincoln called for volunteers. The Kentucky Governor wrote "President Lincoln, I will send not a man nor a dollar for the wicked purpose of subduing my sister southern states.”

Later neutrality would be violated by southern troops and the state would join the union, however a pro south Kentucky government was set up and was accepted by Jeff Davis into the confederacy on December the 10th as the 13th confederate state. States rights was the main cause for the pro south Kentucky government reason for secession.


Declaration For Leaving The Union

“Whereas, the Federal Constitution, which created the Government of the United States, was declared by the framers thereof to be the supreme law of the land, and was intended to limit and did expressly limit the powers of said Government to certain general specified purposes, and did expressly reserve to the States and people all other powers whatever, and the President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will; and Whereas, our honor and our duty to posterity demand that we shall not relinquish our own liberty and shall not abandon the right of our descendants and the world to the inestimable blessings of constitutional government: Therefore, .... because we may choose to take part in a cause for civil liberty and constitutional government against a sectional majority waging war against the people and institutions of fifteen independent States of the old Federal Union, and have done all these things deliberately against the warnings and vetoes of the Governor and the solemn remonstrances of the minority in the Senate and House of Representatives: Therefore, .....have a right to establish any government which to them may seem best adapted to the preservation of their rights and liberties.”
-Declaration of causes of Secession Kentucky


Missouri

“Your requisition is illegal, unconstitutional, revolutionary, inhuman, diabolical, and cannot be complied with”
-Missouri Governor Jackson Response to Lincolns call for Volunteers

The slave state of Missouri was almost universally pro union. When the south sent delegates to try and convince the state to join the south, they were booed and jeered so that the CSA delegate could not even be heard. On March 21 1861 the Missouri convention voted 98-1 against secession, but in its sovereignty, kept its neutrality. Later many in the state became angry and felt their state sovereignty was violated during the “Camp Jackson Affair” with General Lyon capturing the arsenal in St Louis and when union soldiers opened fire on civilians and pro confederates killing dozens. Many felt the federal government was violating the states neutral position and support for secession grew rapid in the state. Lyon would than push the official Governor and state legislature out of Jefferson city.

“The events in St Louis pushed many conditional unionist into the ranks of secessionist” -James McPherson Battle Cry of Freedom

This led to a end to neutrality and both a pro confederate and pro union government in the state. Missouri was accepted on November 28th as the 12th confederate state. Pro south Missouri reasons for secession, centered around constitutional violations of the Lincoln administration.

Missouri Declaration For leaving The Union

“Has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; and Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof”
-Causes of Secession Missouri