# Why the South seceded from the Union **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 28, 2017, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974 "2017-08-28T23:41:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2017, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/121 "2017-09-03T15:32:23Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Everyone understood arming Ft Sumter was an aggressive action. His cabinet argued against it. Even Lincoln admirers brag about how Lincoln deceived the confederates. You have made a lot of howlersin this thread, but I am going to address this one because frankly it is nonsense. In fact it is a NeoConfederate claim, not the realm of real historians, let alone ones who admired Lincoln. Frankly it is nonsense. Licoln had three options with regards to Sumter, he could abandon it, he could go in guns blazing, or he could maintain its garrison. THe first would have been neglectful of his duties as President of the USA, the second would have been needlessly warmongering, and the third was just maintaining the status quo. Let’s also not pretend that the South was some innocent lamb tricked into attacking, either. Jefferson Davis was already planning attacks on other Coastal forts, such as Fort Pickens in Pensacola, FL. But they lacked the canon and supplies to make the attack so Sumter happened first. Davis wanted a war. Lincoln really didn’t want a war, and while some narritives would have you think that the longer the secession went on, the worse it reflected on Lincoln that simply is not true - time was on Lincoln’s side, not Davis. Secession was hardly universal among the southern states, the hotheads had to bully and intimidate Unionists in the states that did secede, the new government was facing a huge amount of economic issues (they just told their biggest customer to go fuck themselves) and was already cracking at the seams. It would have been a matter of a few months for some of the seceding states started thinking twice about their plans,a nd the hotheads would eventually become the intimidated instead. But a nice war to distract from that, and pull in all the other Southern states? Sign Davis up! He was all for doing that! ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2017, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/122 "2017-09-03T17:33:17Z")
Again, Farnaby, IF you’re right and IF the devious Lincoln tricked the gullible Jeff Davis into starting a war, doesn’t that make Davis a dumbass whose name should be mud in the South?I Why do many monuments to a moron who fell into Lincoln’s sneaky trap? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2017, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/123 "2017-09-03T18:58:05Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And the kicker is, regardless of how justified the Feds would have been in saying that, _they weren’t actually saying that_. Even the North agreed that, much though they might like to prohibit slavery, they didn’t have the authority to do that (absent a Constitutional amendment that stood no chance of passage at that time). The South wasn’t upset about something that the Union was actually doing; they were upset about something that they worried that the Union might do at some unspecified future time. But by golly, they were upset _right now_ about it. > > Now, the Union might have been able to pass that amendment at some point in the future, if enough more new free states got added than new slave states (as looked likely to happen). So the South’s fears on that score weren’t entirely ungrounded. But if it did happen, then (contrary to those states’ claims) it would have been perfectly legitimate, since amendments are part of the Constitution. > > And it’d take a lot of new states before that happened. If the South wanted to actually react to that event when it happened, they could just as well have waited until all those new states were added, and then secede. Presumably, they didn’t wait because that would have made their propaganda lies (that the government wasn’t allowed to do that) more bare. Well, and because they were spoiling for a fight. The southern states had two immediate fears over the 1860 election (it’s worth noting that the Republicans gained a majority in Congress as well as Lincoln’s victory). The first was control over federal territories. Congress had direct rule over territories and could enact whatever laws they wished in them. And the Republicans had made it clear they were going to prohibit slavery in all territories. The majority of people living in the territories supported this, so it wasn’t like they were imposing unpopular laws. But the southern states opposed this. They wanted Congress to enact slavery in the territories. Part of this was political; they wanted the future states that would be formed out of these territories to be slave states. And part of it was economic; slave owners in the east had made a lot of money out of selling slaves to new settlers as American expansion moved through Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas, and they they wanted to continue this in New Mexico and Arizona. The second big issue was job patronage; specifically the post office. Most southern states had enacted laws which prohibited abolitionist literature. While this was a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment, there had been an unofficial agreement in the Democrats and the Whigs that they would look the other way and not challenge the laws. The Republicans did not agree. They planned on appointing post masters who would deliver abolitionist literature. And if local governments tried to stop them, they would fight it in courts (where there would be judges appointed by the Republicans). This was the Republican strategy. They did want to end slavery but they were not going to attempt to directly abolish it. What they planned on doing was removing federal support for slavery. The belief was that the system of slavery needed that federal support to exist and once it was removed, slavery would naturally decline. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/124 "2017-09-04T20:03:00Z")
Did you know that Abner Doubelday (he of the baseball origin myth) was second in command at Fort Sumter when it was attacked? He wrote a [reminiscence](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24972/24972-h/24972-h.htm), which describes the agitation for war in the south. It’s not hard to imagine those southerners pining for the heroics of battle akin to the stories of the great revolution that birthed the United States. (In later decades, young Teddy Roosevelt would develop a love of warfare listening to his Confederate uncles regale him with their own tales of valor) > [@](#): > > The leaders of the South at this period would hardly have been satisfied with the most abject submission of the anti-slavery party to all their behests. In fact, every concession made to their wishes seemed to them to be dictated by the weakness of the Government, and its fears of internal dissensions and civil war in all the great cities of the North. **They needed blood and the prestige of a victory to rouse the enthusiasm of their followers, and cement the rising Confederacy**. They wanted a new and powerful slave empire, extending to the Isthmus of Panama, and for this a direct issue must be made with the free States. In vain did a member of Congress, who afterward became a distinguished Union general, offer in Richmond to raise an army of twenty thousand men in the North to fight the abolitionists, if the South would consent to remain in the Union. Even this was not deemed sufficient or satisfactory. Slavery had so long dominated every thing with a rod of iron, that its votaries deemed it was born to universal dominion. All the pathways to political power, all the avenues of promotion in the army and navy, lay in that direction. General Scott was accustomed to say that “with Virginia officers and Yankee troops[Pg 138] he could conquer the world,” and this implied that slave-holders, in his opinion, were the only men fitted to command. I also found it interesting that he does a good job dispelling the argument that slavery couldn’t have been a prime factor, since most southerners were too poor to own slaves. > [@](#): > > The office-holders in the South, who saw in Lincoln’s election an end to their pay and emoluments, were Secessionists to a man, and did their best to keep up the excitement. **They tried to make the poor whites believe that through the re-opening of the African slave-trade negroes would be for sale, in a short time, at thirty dollars a head; and that every laboring man would soon become a rich slave-owner and cotton-planter**. To the timid, they said there would be no coercion. To the ambitious, they spoke of military glory, and the formation of a vast slave empire, to include Mexico, Central America, and the West Indies. The merchants were assured that Charleston would be a free port, rivaling New York in its trade and opulence. ---
**Author:** ![Tzigone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Tzigone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tzigone)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/125 "2017-09-04T20:27:14Z")
> [@](#): > > I also found it interesting that he does a good job dispelling the argument that slavery couldn’t have been a prime factor, since most southerners were too poor to own slaves. Most, yes, but it was hardly a tiny percentage that owned slaves. Looking at the number of [households](http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html), rather than [individuals](https://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/slavery-and-secession-1860-census-statistics/), in the South, 33% of households owned slaves. > [@](#): > > They tried to make the poor whites believe that through the re-opening of the African slave-trade negroes would be for sale, in a short time, at thirty dollars a head; and that every laboring man would soon become a rich slave-owner and cotton-planter. That’s surprising to me. Do you know of any Southern sources for this or is this what he thought Southern power-holders said? Not that politicians and powerful people wouldn’t lie, but it seems Article I Section 9 of the [Confederate Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution) would explicitly forbid this. In addition to making sure people couldn’t lose their slaves, it, as I understand it, forbade import from anywhere (except US) because the big slaveholders/sellers didn’t want their slaves to lose value due to oversupply. For anyone interested, [askHistorians](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/civilwar) has a US civil war section. Though, of course, you still have to evaluate all claims made for accuracy. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2017, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/126 "2017-09-05T05:59:00Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The second big issue was job patronage; specifically the post office. Most southern states had enacted laws which prohibited abolitionist literature. While this was a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment, there had been an unofficial agreement in the Democrats and the Whigs that they would look the other way and not challenge the laws. How could a state law violate the First Amendment, prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2017, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/127 "2017-09-05T15:16:05Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Southern states opposed secession when New England considered that act during Mr. Madison’s War, claiming that they would be willing to shed blood to preserve the Union if New England considered secession subsequent to the Hartford Convention. Although Calhoun was a prominent politician and proponent of Nullification, the actual consideration of that action was pretty much limited to South Carolina. It was not a “Southern” movement. The South also fiercely attacked nullification when Northern states sought to ignore or bypass Fugitive Slave laws. > In the fledgling United States, there were frequent challenges to the understanding of the Constitution and Nullification was one of the issues. However, the South was not consistent in its attitude toward nullification and there was no serious movement to invoke it leading up to the war. I’m not sure your point here. Because by showing another example of nullification you further my argument. At the time of the civil war in the United States: (1) The North and South were fundamentally different economically and socially (2) Citizens identified as or more closely with their state/region than nationally (3) The political structure was very much winner take all with very limited flexibility Given those three things, the danger of disunion/civil war was ever present. Clearly, slavery was the spark and it is a rather huge spark. But without those conditions there wouldn’t have been a civil war. The lack of 1 and 2 is why there was no serious risk of a civil war during integration nor is there one today over something like abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2017, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/128 "2017-09-05T18:33:56Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > How could a state law violate the First Amendment, prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment? It’s a fair question. Did the Constitution protect freedom of speech at the state level prior to 1925? And the honest answer to that question is “maybe”. Some people like to claim that the law is absolute and clear and has only one possible interpretation. Those people are wrong. Two different groups of judges can look at the exact same text and come up with two different interpretations of what that text means. This is why judicial appointments matter. If the law was clear and unambiguous, every judge would issue the exact same rulings so it wouldn’t matter who was appointed. So in a theoretical case, one judge might have decided that Barron was a clear precedent that addressed this issue while a different judge might have decided that Barron was addressing other issues and didn’t apply to this case. If you think this isn’t true, look at Cruikshank and Gitlow. In the Cruikshank decision in 1876, the Supreme Court said the Fourteenth Amendment didn’t extend First Amendment protection to the state level. In the Gitlow decision in 1925, the Supreme Court said the Fourteenth Amendment did extend First Amendment protection to the state level. The text of the two amendments hadn’t changed between 1876 and 1925. What changed was the judges. That’s what the Republicans got when the won the 1860 election; they could now appoint the judges who would decide if the laws banning abolitionist literature were constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2017, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/129 "2017-09-05T18:36:13Z")
I’ve heard it said that prior to the Civil War, it was more common to hear people say “The United States are …” and afterwards, it became “The United States is …”, indicating a difference between the country as a conglomerate of states vs. a single entity. I have no idea how accurate this is. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2017, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/130 "2017-09-05T18:59:37Z")
I believe Shelby Foote made that assertion in the Ken Burns documentary. At least, that’s where I heard of it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/131 "2017-09-06T02:30:16Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I’m not sure your point here. Because by showing another example of nullification you further my argument. At the time of the civil war in the United States: > > (1) The North and South were fundamentally different economically and socially > (2) Citizens identified as or more closely with their state/region than nationally > (3) The political structure was very much winner take all with very limited flexibility > > Given those three things, the danger of disunion/civil war was ever present. Clearly, slavery was the spark and it is a rather huge spark. But without those conditions there wouldn’t have been a civil war. The lack of 1 and 2 is why there was no serious risk of a civil war during integration nor is there one today over something like abortion. Nullification was simply a political game. Various states attempted to justify it at various times, but every state that made a claim for nullification on one occasion fiercely opposed it on other occasions. The economic and social differences between the North and the South were derived from and dependent on slavery. Certainly those differences made it easier to consider secession, but they were not independent and isolated characteristics–they tied back to slavery. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/132 "2017-09-06T02:38:25Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > I’ve heard it said that prior to the Civil War, it was more common to hear people say “The United States are …” and afterwards, it became “The United States is …”, indicating a difference between the country as a conglomerate of states vs. a single entity. I have no idea how accurate this is. While making no claim to have settled this argument, [I addressed the issue in another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20452206#post20452206), pointing out that beyond Shelby Foote’s assertion, I have not scene any significant evidence that this was true. ---
**Author:** ![Melcalc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/melcalc/32/468_2.png) [@Melcalc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melcalc)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/133 "2017-09-06T11:40:04Z")
[Even PragerU thinks it’s slavery.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4) ---
**Author:** ![MrAtoz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MrAtoz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrAtoz)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/134 "2017-09-06T13:29:05Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > While making no claim to have settled this argument, [I addressed the issue in another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20452206#post20452206), pointing out that beyond Shelby Foote’s assertion, I have not scene any significant evidence that this was true. With respect, in that thread you addressed the notion of “these United States” versus “the United States.” Which is a claim that I have actually never heard until the post you were responding to. The question of “the United States are” versus “the United States is” (that is, plural rather than singular) is different, and your own cites show some support for it. Check out the language in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Article XIII begins “The United States engage…” (not engages). Article XIV begins “The United States do furthermore discharge…” (not does discharge). Article XV begins “The United States…undertake to make satisfaction…” (not undertakes). All these articles treat “The United States” as semantically plural, not singular. There actually aren’t all that many occasions when these documents use “The United States” as the subject of a sentence (as opposed to something like “the Government of the United States”). So we have limited examples from which to extrapolate. I haven’t done an exhaustive search on the topic. But I would suggest that, based on the text we do have before us, we might go so far as to say there is some support for Foote’s assertion. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/135 "2017-09-06T13:45:19Z")
> [@MrAtoz](#): > > With respect, in that thread you addressed the notion of “these United States” versus “the United States.” Which is a claim that I have actually never heard until the post you were responding to. The question of “the United States are” versus “the United States is” (that is, plural rather than singular) is different, and your own cites show some support for it. > > Check out the language in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Article XIII begins “The United States engage…” (not engages). Article XIV begins “The United States do furthermore discharge…” (not does discharge). Article XV begins “The United States…undertake to make satisfaction…” (not undertakes). All these articles treat “The United States” as semantically plural, not singular. > > There actually aren’t all that many occasions when these documents use “The United States” as the subject of a sentence (as opposed to something like “the Government of the United States”). So we have limited examples from which to extrapolate. I haven’t done an exhaustive search on the topic. But I would suggest that, based on the text we do have before us, we might go so far as to say there is some support for Foote’s assertion. An additional factor that complicates the issue is that British English tends to treat collective nouns as plural, while American English treats them as singular (where as in the US, someone would write “The government is planning…”, in the UK the equivalent would be “The government are planning …” and neither usage necessarily implies anything about how united or separable the collective noun is. So saying “The United States is” versus “The United States are” may simply be an evolution of grammatical style, with no deeper meaning. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/136 "2017-09-06T14:09:33Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > While making no claim to have settled this argument, [I addressed the issue in another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20452206#post20452206), pointing out that beyond Shelby Foote’s assertion, I have not scene any significant evidence that this was true. I wasn’t sure which thread to put this in, but I think it goes better here; however, I’ll start by partly quoting a couple of posts from that other thread: > [@Suddenly these Statues offend people?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suddenly-these-statues-offend-people/794636/307): > > Before the civil war people referred to “these United States” after the Civil war people referred to “the United States” > [@Suddenly these Statues offend people?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suddenly-these-statues-offend-people/794636/322): > > I see this claim made quite often. > > I have never seen any actual evidence to support the claim. There are documents and speeches in which “these” is used, rather than “the,” but there are plenty of references using “the.” I think y’all have gone down a bit of a blind alley here. IIRC, the claim wasn’t that there’s a distinction between “the United States” and “these United States” (I’m pretty sure I occasionally still hear politicians say “these United States”, purely as a rhetorical flourish). The claim is that Americans shifted from “the United States _are_” before the Civil War, to “the United States _is_” after the war. There does seem to be some validity to that claim. In the Constitution, for example, the plural is used (“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against _them_, or in adhering to _their_ Enemies…”), which grammatical form is still found in the [U.S. Code](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381), but definitely sounds archaic these days. To semi-randomly pick one of the documents Tom linked to in that other thread, [the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo](https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=26&page=transcript), a careful read still shows that was the case in 1848: “The United States do furthermore discharge the Mexican Republic…”; _NOT_ “The United States _does_…”. (Contrast this with the [Treaty of Peace Between the United States and Spain](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/sp1898.asp) in 1898: “The United States will adjudicate and settle the claims of its citizens”; _NOT_ “the claims of _their_ citizens”. The pre-Civil War Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo by contrast at one point refers to “The United States, exonerating Mexico from all demands on account of the claims of _their_ citizens…”) It’s an interesting linguistic point. I do think some people read _way_ too much into it. I recall a claim right here on the SDMB within the last month that before the Civil War the U.S. was more like “the 1970s European Common Market” rather than a true state, which is not at all tenable. (The 1970s EEC wasn’t going around waging war on and then annexing large chunks of nearby countries; even linguistically, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, although using plural forms to refer to the United States, also consistently refers to “them” as a singular republic, not as a loose alliance or confederation of republics.) More to the point, whether the term “United States” is regarded as grammatically plural or singular, there was manifestly a strong sense of nationhood and of a national identity as “Americans” _before_ the Civil War; if there hadn’t been, there wouldn’t have been a (long, bloody) Civil War in the first place. Nobody is likely to start a shooting war over Brexit. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/137 "2017-09-06T14:17:13Z")
The issue obviously goes beyond grammar. If people were commonly referring to the United States as a plural entity rather than a single entity, than it implies they thought of the United States as a collection of separate states rather than as a single country. As I’ve pointed out, if that was the case then there wouldn’t have been a secession crisis. If people saw the states as sovereign countries voluntarily joined in an association, nobody would have been upset over South Carolina leaving the group. At most it would have been like Britain leaving the European Union; there were have been hard feelings but nobody would have objected that South Carolina’s departure was illegal. But that was not the case. The majority of people in 1860 saw secession as an illegal act. There may have been a substantial minority that disagreed but we can’t pretend there was anything like a consensus that secession was a right. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/138 "2017-09-06T16:15:10Z")
Unless you can show that usage referred to other federal states in the plural and unitary states in the singular. And I think it has been shown that referring to states it was common to use the plural form, regardless of the political organization of the state. And this is because states are obviously collections of individuals, even when they are not collections of states. So using a collective form to refer to a state doesn’t betray some underlying political opinion, it’s just usage. Even today people would say “The Netherlands are going to beat Uruguay in their match tomorrow”. They do this not because they believe that the Netherlands is a collection of confederated provinces, but because “The Netherlands” has the form of a plural noun. Even today people will say “The United States are going to lose the match against Mexico”, just because of that plural States. The person talking about the football match is not conveying a subtle point about the political organization of the United States. Because the same person would never say “Mexico are going to win”, even though Mexico is also a federal state. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/139 "2017-09-06T16:23:24Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Unless you can show that usage referred to other federal states in the plural and unitary states in the singular. And I think it has been shown that referring to states it was common to use the plural form, regardless of the political organization of the state. And this is because states are obviously collections of individuals, even when they are not collections of states. So using a collective form to refer to a state doesn’t betray some underlying political opinion, it’s just usage. Even today people would say “The Netherlands are going to beat Uruguay in their match tomorrow”. They do this not because they believe that the Netherlands is a collection of confederated provinces, but because “The Netherlands” has the form of a plural noun. Even today people will say “The United States are going to lose the match against Mexico”, just because of that plural States. The person talking about the football match is not conveying a subtle point about the political organization of the United States. Because the same person would never say “Mexico are going to win”, even though Mexico is also a federal state. If you google “England are winning” you will find plenty of examples - and also for “England are going to win” ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2017, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974/140 "2017-09-11T17:02:36Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > You are not the first person to suggest this on the SDMB. It is an absolutely preposterous idea, one that ignores rudimentary economics as well as the reality that Southern society was based on slavery. > > No amount of money could have bought all the slaves. It’s worth noting, however, that Lincoln offered “compensated emancipation” to the four “border states” during the war. Secure in the knowledge that they would stay in the Union and certain that the Union would end slavery, the border states nevertheless overwhelmingly _rejected_ compensation, and duly lost all their capital when the slaves were eventually freed. Why did they decide so? Because holding their social “inferiors” in bondage was so critical to their sense of self-worth that they’d rather lose a fortune and be bitter about it than free thousands of human beings, look like heroes, and get paid for it. Slavery may have started out as an economic system, but long before 1860, slaveholding people had so much of their own egos and self-definitions wrapped up in their attempt not to feel guilty over what they were doing that the entire subject was warped by intense emotion, and logic barely applied. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-south-seceded-from-the-union/794974.md?page=6)