Why Did North Carolina Secede?

Why Did North Carolina Secede? Al Mackey asks this question in his blog post at https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2016/07/08/why-did-north-carolina-secede/

Of course anyone who knows Mackey, knows what the answer will be — SLAVERY What else????

I do admit Mackey lays out his case well using facts and figures to support his argument, but these are just cherry picked figures. In Reality North Carolina did not even mention slavery in their secession document. They do mention maintaining their sovereignty

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of North Carolina and the other States united with her, under the compact of government entitled “The Constitution of the United States.”

We, the people of the State of North Carolina in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by the State of North Carolina in the convention of 1789, whereby the Constitution of the United States was ratified and adopted, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded, and abrogated.

We do further declare and ordain, That the union now subsisting between the State of North Carolina and the other States, under the title of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of North Carolina is in full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.

Done in convention at the city of Raleigh, this the 20th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1861, and in the eighty-fifth year of the independence of said State.

Now more to the point of secession let’s just take a couple of sources into consideration related to the act of secession–

Unionism and Secession in the South:

One further caveat in thinking about Southern Unionism. Virtually all historians, including this one, are agreed today on the centrality of slavery in explaining the road to secession. Yet if we would understand the nature of Southern Unionism we cannot stop there in accounting for
the abandonment of Unionist by sufficient Southerners to create the Confederacy. Human motivation and loyalties are more complex than that. A concern about the future of slavery was more often in the background than in the forefront of Southerners’ thinking about the Union.

Certainly it is difficult to show a clear causal line between direct involvement with slavery and attitudes toward secession. For one thing, too many unconditional Unionists….were slaveholders. For such persons the ownership of slaves was not sufficient reason for supporting
secession. For another, most of the Southerners who made up the Confederacy were not directly connected with slavery at all. The majority of white Southerners, after all, did not own a single slave. Their concern for the institution of slavery could at best have been
only an indirect motive for supporting secession and later the Confederacy.

It makes much more sense to see slavery as a shaper of Southern civilization and values than as an interest. The anxiety about the future of slavery was there because the future of the South was intimately tied up with the institution. But the role of slavery in moving individual Southerners from Unionism to secession was neither simple nor obvious. Precisely at what point an individual Southerner decided that he or she could no longer support the Union when it came
into conflict with region depended upon many things, not only upon his or her immediate relationship to slavery.”

(The Other South, Southern Dissenters in the Nineteenth Century, Carl N.
Degler, Harper & Row, 1974, page 122)


Self-Preservation Compelled Secession:

“What mighty force lay back of this Southern movement, which by the beginning of February, 1861, had swept seven States out of the Union? An explanation early accepted and long held by the North made it simply the South’s desire to protect slavery. Forty years of wrangling over this subject, fortified by many statements Southerners had made about it….[and] South Carolina in her secession declaration had made the North’s interference with slavery her greatest grievance, and the subject appeared equally large in other seceding States.

Yet simple answers are never very satisfying, and in this case it was too simple to say that Southerners seceded and fought a four-year war for the surface reason of merely protecting their property in slaves. Had not the South spurned the Corwin Amendment, which guaranteed slavery in the States against all interference by Congress? And what happened to the subject of slavery in the territories, which had loomed so big in the 1850’s? Now it was forgotten by both the North and the South.

Slavery was undoubtedly a potent cause; but more powerful than slavery was the Negro himself. It was the fear of what would ultimately happen to the South if the Negro should be freed by the North, as the abolitionists seemed so intent on doing – and Southerners considered Republicans and abolitionists the same. This fear had worried Calhoun when he wrote in 1849 “The Address of Southern Delegates in Congress to their Constituents.” It was not the loss of property in slaves that the South feared so much as the danger of the South becoming another Santo Domingo, should a Republican regime free the slaves. And it is no argument to say that Lincoln would never have tried to do this. The South believed his party would force him to it if he did not do so of his own volition. If he were not himself an abolitionist, he had got his position by abolition votes. A friend of Salmon P. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury, told him that the South’s knowledge of what happened in Santo Domingo and “Self-preservation had compelled secession.”

(A History of the South, Volume VII, The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865, E. Merton Coulter, LSU Press, 1950, pp. 8-10)

Last One

A New Yorker on Southern Secession:

“Congressman Daniel Sickles, a Democrat from New York City, delivered a speech in the House of Representatives on December 10, 1860 on the question of secession. He opposed the use of force to retain States in the Union, making it clear that :

“When the call for force comes—let it come whence it may—no man will ever pass the boundaries of the city of New York for the purpose of waging war against any State of this Union…the Union can be made perpetual by justice; but it cannot be maintained an instant by force. (Sickles recognized the right of secession)…as the last dread alternative of a free State when it has to choose between liberty and justice. In our Federal system the recognized right of secession is a conservative safeguard. It is the highest constitutional and moral guarantee against injustice; and therefore if it had been always and universally acknowledged as a rightful remedy, it would have contributed more than all else to perpetuate the Union, by compelling the observance of all their obligations on the part of all the States. The opposite dogma, which is so extensively believed at the North, that no matter what wrongs a State may have to endure, it may and ought to be compelled by force to remain in the Union, even as a conquered dependency, is a most dangerous error in our system of government, and has contributed largely to the existing anarchy.”

(The Secession Movement in the Middle Atlantic States, William C. Wright, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1973, pp. 189-190)

Mackey in his infinite wisdom flat out makes the statement that North Carolina left the Union for no other reason but to protect slavery. Here we see three different reason why North Carolina or the cotton states left the Union. I have recorded way too many reason and sources on secession to post here, and I know long pots get boring, but if you have an interest you may go to Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4 and read as many entries and you want on the subject. You will see how slanted Mackey’s version of history really is.


Mackey Proves He Is An Idiot

Oh goodness Al Mackey is showing us how ignorant and bigoted he really is. His post “Another Texas Idiot Rears His Ugly Head” at https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2016/09/15/another-texas-idiot-rears-his-ugly-head/ contains a couple of good gems in the content.

Mackey attacks Sid Miller, a Texas Agricultural Commissioner, because of this statement Mr. Miller posted to Facebook—-

” I understand that there are many different opinions about the War Between the States, the Confederacy, and even the flags that were carried into battle by those Soldiers who believed what they were fighting and dying for was right. I have my opinion and others can have theirs. After all, we live in a country where blood was shed by those on both sides of the Civil War to protect that right. The Washington Post is certainly entitled to their opinion. What they are not entitled to do is attempt to read the minds of my long-dead Confederate ancestors and determine that their actions and motivations during that awful war were treasonous.”

Mackey’s first attack is this —
So according to this moron, the confederacy was formed to guarantee free speech, and he obviously has no clue what he’s talking about regarding treason.

So Let’s see Mackey the college poof( not a typo) want to talk the reason the the Confederate was formed was to guarantee free speech. Well Mackey suppose in your infinite wisdom you tell us why the United States was formed? After all both the Confederate States and United States constitutions are virtual mirrors of each other. Do you suppose the Confederacy was formed for the same reason the United States was formed??? I do think so. And yes the Confederate Constitution guarantees free speech, check it out.

Treason Mackey. You think you are so smart, why don’t you prove treason. Better yet why don’t you tell us ONE confederate who was tried and convicted of treason. That should be easy enough for a smart guy like you. Let me give you a hint– 0, none, zilch. Got it?

Typical of your ignorance, bias and bigotry, you attack someone because they wish to honor their Confederate ancestors, American veterans I remind you. You attack Mr. Miller by saying He’s the one with absolutely no understanding of the Civil War and why it was fought. According anyone making a pro-Confederate statement is an idiot. I say YOU ARE THE IDOIT who has no understanding of the war or why it was fought. You haven’t the God given sense to tell us. Why??? You don’t know and besides you still think the war was about slavery. Typical ignorant bigot.

Mackey in his ignorance then makes the statement “Banning a flag from a fixed, permanent flagpole is not desecrating a grave, and confederates were not fighting to protect and preserve the United States Constitution.” Yes Mackey banning the Confederate flag is desecrating the graves of Confederate Soldiers. We might as well remove the US flag in Normandy and fly the French flag. True the Confederates were not fighting to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States, but they were fighting against abuses of the Constitution and the laws of the land which were not being upheld. They were fighting for rights guaranteed under this Constitution.

In my opinion it is hard to believe that the good people of Virginia let you teach their children this trash. You bigotry is easy to see, your ignorance is easy to expose.

I didn’t think Mackey could get any lower but he just has to make a statement against Trump supporters I thought the Trump people were claiming their supporters were not deplorable xenophobic, Islamophobic fear mongers. Apparently in Miller’s case they were wrong.” Well Mackey I can see why you support Clinton, she is a liar and so are you. Birds of a feather fly together. Fear mongers well that may be true I mean wasn’t there just a new bombing in New York and New Jersey. Ain’t it your boy who is in charge of the country?

Geee Mackey see how stupid you really are????? Appears That Mr. Miller has got you beat in the smart department.

Confederate wealth

Some time ago I posted the cause of the war was revenue. I posted proclamations of Buchanan, Lincoln and Johnson showing such cause. Recently I found these newspapers articles that tellof Confederate money being destroyed and the United States going after England for more Confederate wealth.


Los Angeles Herald, Number 169, 17 May 1920 — Seized Confederate MONEY IS destroyed

Seized confederate MONEY IS destroyed

WASHINOTONT, May 17.—The final chapter in the financial history of the Confederate States of America was written In the treasury department recently when $60,000,000 In Confederate money was destroyed to relieve the congested condition of the treasury vaults. The currency comprised the “sinews of war” In the Confederate treasury at- Richmond, and was .seized by the Federal troops when the southern capital was captured.


Sacramento Daily Union, Volume 59, Number 134, 28 July 1888 — UNCLE SAM WANTS IT.


Thirty Millions of Confederate Property Sold to Englishmen. Washington, July 27th.—

In response tc a Senate resolution calling upon him for any evidence in the Treasury Department relating to property of the United .States to which the United States has a valid claim, and which is held in adverse possession, the Secretary of the Treasury to-day transmitted to the Senate reports of the Solicitor of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the subject. The most interesting of the documents returned is a letter from Littlepage, lately employed as ua agent of the treasury to assist in the prevention and detection oi frauds upon the customs revenue.” In a letter dated November 11, IS«7, he state: that he went to his home in King William county, Va., to examine his old Confederate papers, made and received while in Europe, under order of the then Confederate States Government, to obtain accurate data. He says h* found that in the winter of 18C4 he was ordered to the Confederate ship The Texas, alias The Pompeiro This vessel was built at Glasgow as a No. 1 sloop-of-war and was to have received hei armament and equipment, while lying off the coast of England, by another vessel.

Captain Henry Sinclair of the Confederate States navy superintended the construction of the vessel, her cost being $1,400,000 all of which was fully paid by the Confederate Government. The vessel, he says started to sea, but having been reported a Confederate cruiser, was seized. Captain Sinclair, rather than carry her through the Courts, secured her release by guaranteeing that she should not go into the hands o! the Confederacy. He then chartered her and when, a few months after, the Confederacy collapsed, she was sailing under the same charter. He adds that this vessel was fully paid for by the Confederate Government, and should belong to the United Slates. She is still valuable and is now trading between Edinburgh and Copenhagen. He adds that Theodore Clyde built steamers constructed by Confederate Government money, and similarly disposed o! by their agents or captains, which should now belong to the United States. There were also two powerful rams built by Baird & Company Co. on the Mersey, ostensibly for the Chinese Government, but inspected and tested by Confederate officers. They were he says, seized by the British authorities and were finally disposed of by the Confederate agents in charge, and are

Having recently been seen by Admire] Luce at Bermuda flying the British Hag. Littlepage also speaks ol certain powerful Clyde-built steamers and rams built for the Confederate Government, and also states that parties who recently visited Captain Sinclair’s house say that its linen crockery, cutlery, etc., bore the letters, ” C.S.N.,” which are supposed to have come from the Texas. He adds that two new Clyde-built steamers, the City of Petersburg and the Old Dominion, which were built for the Confederate Government and paid for by it, are now running between Liverpool and Dublin.

$30,000,000 of Confederate property iii ENGLAND.
Littlepage files an itemized statement ol Confederate property unreoovered by the Government, amounting to $30,000,000. most of which is in English hands. He estimates that there are $6,000,000 worth in tbe United States, not including the value of many million dollars’ worth of cotton belonging to the Confederate Government, shipped from Brownsville, Galveston and Matamoras since the war.