Thomas DiLorenzo, in his excellent work The Real Lincoln, gives a very applicable example on the situation that our nation found itself in 1860 by likening it to a marriage. One party seeks control of the other while violating the marriage agreement, which subsequently ends in a divorce and one party holding a gun to their loved-one’s head saying “you cannot leave—or else.” I thought this was a brilliant example to shed light on the Southern situation of 1860, not only because it’s relevant, but because of one overlooked South Carolina document that often get’s unnoticed: Robert Rhett’s An Address of the People of South Carolina.

If you fly a Confederate flag, chances are you’ve heard the opposition say, “It’s all about slavery…because of the Ordinances of secession.” This weekend, I took the time to carefully examine this document in its entirety. Unsurprisingly, many online forums do not give the entire version, they simply copy and paste the sections which speak of slavery. Rightfully so, anyone reading this document without proper historical context would be blind to the entire truth. For example, do scientists or anyone seeking the truth, reach a conclusion based upon one single form of evidence, or does their thesis/theory/conclusion result from an array of evidence, physical or otherwise observed? History is no different!

When I hear someone mention, in its proper term, Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of SC from the Federal Union, I ask them if they’ve read Robert Rhett’s 1860 piece. The answer is usually no. But I believe this document sheds more light on not only the various reasons for secession, but a clearer picture of how slavery played a part. Within the opening paragraph:

“The one great evil, from which all other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States. The Government of the United States is no longer the government of Confederated Republics, but of a consolidated Democracy. It is no longer a free government, but a despotism.…The Southern States now stand exactly in the same position toward the Northern States that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament.”

After reading this, the skeptic might say that the overthrow of the Constitution, consolidation of democracy, and despotism spoken of is completely over the issue of slavery. This is what modern historians would suggest, but read on:

“…with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain..the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States, have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North….Taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue…to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the products of their mines and manufacturers…after the taxes are collected, three-fouths of them are expended at the North.”

The document continues to explain how Northern-run policy based on greed, strangled the South, annihilated trade, and likening it to tyranny and destruction of their future posterity if they do not separate:

“In their reckless lust for power…the majority, constituted form those who do not represent the sectional or local interests, will control and govern them. A free people cannot submit to such a government.”

Overall, it was a question of small government—do the States have right to govern themselves over the interests of the Federal government—not simply over slavery, but concerning taxes and trade?

Putting slavery into context.

The issue of slavery is mentioned in both SC documents because Northerners were purposefully disobeying the Constitution and South Carolina saw this as one more justification to secede from an increasingly hostile neighbor. Like a marriage, if one party cheats on the other, Biblically and traditionally, the opposing party has justification in separation, permanent or temporary. South Carolina is making that exact point here concerning slavery. At the time, the United States Constitution, which all States agreed to adhere to, allowed slavery. In fact, Abraham Lincoln wrote to every governor in the seceded Southern States offering solidification of slavery within the US Constitution permanently. It was known as the Corwin amendment (don’t be surprised when your college professor hasn’t a clue about this). As the Northern states increasingly disobeyed the law, by not prosecuting lawbreaking slaves or returning them to their owners, Southerners crept closer and closer to secession. The South also lived for a decade with a barrage of Yankee rhetoric which lied, demonized, and stirred up controversy within their society. Simply put, the mention of slavery in both documents, especially within the immediate causes is an outraged reaction to the fiasco of John Brown, Nat Turner, and rhetoric of various radical abolitionist newspapers.

Disregarding the historical context of slavery, the typical progressive might conclude that the end justifies the means. That regardless of what the North did to the South; illegally invading, waging total war on women and children, knowingly committing countless war crimes. The war ended slavery—therefore it was all OK. To that I would say, at what cost? 600,000 American lives, decades of poverty towards not only whites but blacks, while Reconstruction fostered decades of racial animosity. Why not allow the South to leave in peace and permit them to resolve the slavery question as they saw fit, just as every other Western nation?

There were a variety of reasons for the South wanting peaceful separation, and it wasn’t “all about slavery.” Robert Rhett’s The Address of the People of South Carolina, the Corwin Amendment, US Congressional Record, Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, and various other historical documents prove this.