Here it goes;
The South has been vilified by the Northern victor since before she seceded from the Union. It has been said they were "racists" and fought for the preservation of slavery or that they were "traitors." These claims are based on nothing but propaganda issued from the printing press of the aggressor. I will prove that the South had the right to secede, the South's so-called "racism" was never as bad as the North's, and the South fought fought for the preservation of her self-determination.
Secession and states' rights are two controversial subjects in American politics and government. Although they are now contentious, these were some of the guiding principles in the early days of the Union. The people of the states believed that a government closer to home, such as those in the states, had the true interest of the people in their heart. The document that declared our independence from the crown declares us to be "free and sovereign states" and have all the rights of a sovereign state. Why would the founding document of the states say the states are sovereign if a central government had the authority to push them back into line? The assertion to any casual observer that a document that is itself is declaring independence, forbids it to others.
The next document important to the development of the United States is the Articles of Confederation. In article two of the said document it states:
If the Articles of Confederation didn't state it was perpetual, that would be enough. Explanation of the perpetuity clause; it was meant to say that the Articles didn't end just because it was passed a certain date, and need I mention that the Articles ended in 1788, after starting in 1781.II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Then the Constitution is the structure of the current government. In the Constitution it never declares that the states lost their sovereignty by ratifying, if that was the case I guarantee you that it wouldn't be ratified by any of the states. Many opponents of secession would say that the supremacy clause trumps this argument. This is ridiculous, the clause means that the states by ratifying are guaranteeing that they will uphold their end of the bargain, not that the federal government is supreme in all laws it passes, no matter what their contents. Otherwise Article I Section 8 is nothing but a waste of ink and parchment.
The claims issued forth from Northern presses are also false when they claim that the South was motivated by "racism." If that is the case, so was the North the following is a quote from the much admired Northern general William Tecumseh Sherman:
(O.R., Series I, Volume XXX, p. 234-235)As long as a doubtful contest for supremacy exists between the two races they cannot control their choice; but as soon as we demonstrate equal courage, equal skill, superior resources, and superior tenacity of purpose, they will gradually relax and finally submit to men who profess, like myself, to fight for but one single purpose, viz, to sustain a Government capable of vindicating its just and rightful authority, independent of niggers, cotton, money, or any earthly interest.
If you don't believe he said this, go look it up in Official Record, Cornell University has it on their website. It looks like at least Sherman believes this. It is also widely acknowledged that Lincoln believed in "colonization" of the blacks, sending them back to Africa. This sounds like a policy of 19th century ethnic cleansing to me, hardly a policy of tolerance. The South on the other hand gave a plan to the European powers to recognize them in late 1864 on the basis of gradual emancipation. Why would a person fight for something it was willing to get rid of? That is a question the aggressor rarely likes to be faced with.
My last point concerns the South's cause in seceding. Given the facts from the previous paragraph I feel that no significant argument is needed as to her cause. If her cause was not slavery or racism, how could anyone dispute her reason for her secession, it is a moot point. So we may philosophize about her reasons but they are really not of any note, other than to try to prevent future instances of secession.
The South not only had the right to secede but wasn't motivated by "racism" or any other such cause. If you still wish to contend her cause, please elaborate on why you believe that she seceded from the Union for that purpose.