In Their Own Words: The True Cause of the Civil War

A comprehensive examination of Confederate declarations and speeches reveals the centrality of slavery to secession and the Confederacy’s foundation.

Introduction

The causes of the Civil War have long been the subject of debate, often clouded by modern reinterpretations and ideological narratives. However, a clearer picture emerges when we turn to the words of the time. By examining contemporary documents such as Alexander Stephens's Cornerstone Speech and the secession declarations of Confederate States, we ground our understanding in the expressed motivations of those who lived and acted in that era.

It is critical to recognize that the governments of the Southern states, which would later form the Confederacy, were democratically elected. The declarations and statements issued by their representatives thus reflect the prevailing will of the majority within those states. While the Federal Government often faces challenges in articulating the collective will of its diverse states, the more localized governments of the South spoke with a narrower resolution. This lends their declarations to a unique clarity in representing their constituents' priorities.

Moreover, a careful review of these primary sources raises important questions: Are references to "states' rights" in these documents consistently tied to slavery, either directly or through issues fundamentally connected to the institution of slavery? If so, does this suggest that "states' rights" were less a separate principle and more a rhetorical synonym for slavery in the context of secession?

If slavery emerges as the predominant cause of secession in these documents and speeches, and if no compelling alternative explanation presents itself, how should we interpret the motivations behind the Civil War? Was the conflict, as many claim, truly about something other than slavery, or does the evidence tell a different story? This article explores these questions by examining the documents themselves, seeking to ground the discussion in the expressed words and priorities of the era.

South Carolina

As we turn to the declarations of secession, the words of the states themselves provide a window into their motivations for leaving the Union. South Carolina, the first state to secede, laid out a detailed justification rooted in its interpretation of constitutional principles and grievances against the federal government. By analyzing its Declaration of the Immediate Causes, we can begin to understand the recurring themes of constitutional interpretation, perceived violations of agreements, and, most significantly, the institution of slavery. Let us now examine South Carolina's declaration in detail, as it sets the tone for the documents that followed from other seceding states.

South Carolina’s Declaration of the Immediate Causes leaves little ambiguity about the centrality of slavery to its decision to secede. The document explicitly argues that the recognition and protection of slavery were foundational to the Union’s creation. As it states:

“The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: 'No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.' This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made.”

Here, South Carolina affirms that its participation in the Union hinged on the constitutional guarantee of slavery.

The document further details the state’s grievances against Northern opposition to slavery, portraying it as a betrayal of constitutional obligations and a direct attack on the South’s social and economic order. As the declaration laments:

“Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.”

This statement encapsulates South Carolina’s deep resentment towards abolitionist movements, the harboring of fugitive slaves, and what it viewed as Northern interference in Southern sovereignty.

What is striking, however, is that no other argument is presented throughout the entire declaration. Every grievance ties back to slavery, either through its recognition in the Constitution, the enforcement of fugitive slave laws, or the perceived threat posed by Northern abolitionist efforts. For South Carolina, the refusal of Northern states to uphold constitutional guarantees around slavery and their broader hostility to the institution rendered the Union untenable. No other issue receives comparable attention or emphasis, solidifying slavery’s significant role in the state’s justification for secession.

Mississippi

Mississippi’s Declaration of the Immediate Causes is perhaps the most explicit of all the secession documents in identifying slavery as the primary reason for leaving the Union. The document declares unequivocally:

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world.”

This striking statement sets the tone for the entire declaration, framing slavery not only as vital to Mississippi’s economy but as a cornerstone of global commerce and civilization itself. The declaration argues that Northern opposition to slavery constitutes a direct attack on this institution, equating such actions with an existential threat to Mississippi’s way of life.

The document does not merely defend the preservation of slavery within Mississippi’s borders; it decries the Federal Government’s refusal to allow the expansion of slavery into new territories as a direct assault on the state’s future. It laments that the North “refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.” This grievance demonstrates that Mississippi viewed slavery’s expansion as essential to its economic and social survival, and its restriction as a threat tantamount to abolition itself. Additionally, the declaration accuses Northern states of nullifying the Fugitive Slave Law, fostering abolitionist movements, and promoting “negro equality, socially and politically.” These actions, Mississippi claimed, destroyed any hope of coexistence, leaving secession as the only viable alternative to what it described as “utter subjugation.”

As with South Carolina, no other issue of comparable significance is raised. Every grievance in the document ties directly to slavery, whether through constitutional disputes, territorial restrictions, or perceived threats to social stability. Mississippi’s declaration leaves no doubt that the preservation and expansion of slavery were not merely contributing factors but the defining issues driving its secession. This clarity underscores the deep entrenchment of slavery in the state’s identity and its view of the Union as irreparably hostile to its most fundamental interests.

Georgia

Georgia’s Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Georgia to Secede from the Union provides an elaborate account of the state's grievances, centering almost entirely on slavery as the primary cause. From the outset, Georgia asserts:

“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.”

The document portrays Northern actions as a relentless campaign to undermine slavery, accusing the North of attempting to “weaken our security” and “disturb our domestic peace and tranquility.” This framing establishes slavery as not merely an economic system but a societal cornerstone under siege by Northern opposition.

Beyond preserving slavery within its borders, Georgia’s declaration, like Mississippi’s, places significant emphasis on the need to expand slavery into new territories. It decries the Federal Government’s refusal to admit new slave states, stating that “The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle” of Northern policy, which it claims seeks to limit, restrain, and abolish slavery across the United States. For Georgia, such restrictions constituted a direct assault on its future, threatening its economic stability and social structure. This perceived hostility, compounded by the election of Abraham Lincoln and the ascendance of the Republican Party—described as “an anti-slavery party”—left the state with no choice but secession.

Notably, the document’s grievances consistently return to slavery as the defining issue. While it briefly mentions economic policies such as tariffs and subsidies favoring Northern industries, these are presented as secondary to the central conflict over slavery. Georgia concludes by portraying the abolitionist agenda as not only a threat to its property but also to the very survival of its society, declaring that Northern policies aim at “the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children.” This stark rhetoric underscores how deeply slavery was intertwined with Georgia’s identity and how its leaders viewed secession as the only viable means of safeguarding their way of life.

Texas

Texas’s Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union combines elements of its unique history as a former independent republic with the broader grievances shared by other seceding states. From the outset, the declaration emphasizes that Texas was admitted to the Union as a slaveholding state, stating that it “was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery.” Like other Southern states, Texas viewed Northern opposition to slavery as a direct attack on its way of life and a violation of the constitutional guarantees that justified its membership in the Union.

The document goes even further in explicitly tying slavery to white supremacy, stating:

“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.”

This statement crystallizes the ideology underpinning Texas’s secession, presenting slavery not just as an economic system but as a societal necessity ordained by divine law and human history.

While the declaration briefly mentions grievances such as federal neglect of border security and disputes over territorial governance, these are presented in the context of protecting slavery. The document accuses the Federal Government and Northern states of promoting abolitionist policies, denying Southern rights in the territories, and undermining the “patriarchal system of African slavery.” As with other seceding states, no other issue receives comparable attention or emphasis. For Texas, the preservation of slavery and the racial hierarchy it upheld were non-negotiable, and secession was framed as the only viable response to the perceived existential threats posed by the North.

Other States

While the declarations of South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas provide detailed explanations of their reasons for secession—centering predominantly on the preservation and expansion of slavery—other states issued less detailed ordinances. Many of these ordinances focused primarily on formalizing the legal act of secession without extensively justifying their reasons. For example, Alabama’s ordinance declares the intent to join other slaveholding states in forming a new government “upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,” implicitly emphasizing slavery as a unifying factor.

Missouri and Kentucky present unique cases. Their declarations of secession did not come from the official state governments but rather from pro-Confederate factions operating outside the Union-controlled state apparatus. Missouri’s declaration, issued in October 1861, cites non-slavery grievances, including accusations of Union invasions, the occupation of its Capitol, attacks on its militia, and atrocities against its citizens. Kentucky’s November 1861 declaration similarly points to federal overreach and hostility as justifications for secession. However, in both cases, these shadow governments represented only segments of the states' populations, while their official governments remained loyal to the Union.

It is important to note that the broader context of secession and the Confederacy consistently emphasized the centrality of slavery as the foundational issue. Even in states like Missouri and Kentucky, where local conditions influenced the rhetoric of pro-Confederate factions, slavery underpinned the Confederate cause as articulated by its leadership and foundational documents. This distinction highlights the complex interplay of local circumstances and the overarching ideological motivations behind secession.

The Confederacy

The declarations of secession from South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas, along with the ordinances from other states, demonstrate a shared emphasis on slavery as the central cause of secession. However, no single document encapsulates the Confederacy’s ideological foundation more explicitly than Alexander H. Stephens's Cornerstone Speech, delivered on March 21, 1861, in Savannah, Georgia. As the newly appointed Vice President of the Confederacy, Stephens articulated the principles that underpinned the Confederate government, leaving no room for ambiguity about its priorities and values.

Stephens described the Confederacy as a revolution aimed at rectifying what he perceived as flaws in the Union’s governance. Among the changes in the Confederate Constitution that he praised were reforms to economic policies, such as removing tariffs that fostered sectional favoritism and eliminating federal funding for internal improvements that disproportionately benefited Northern states. He also highlighted administrative innovations, including allowing cabinet members to debate in Congress and extending the presidential term to six years with no re-election, which he argued would reduce personal ambition in governance. These grievances and structural reforms reflect longstanding disputes over federalism and economic policy that predated the Civil War.

However, the speech’s legacy—and its most infamous aspect—is its explicit elevation of slavery and white supremacy as the moral and philosophical foundation of the Confederacy. Stephens declared:

“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.”

This statement not only identifies slavery as central to the Confederate project but also frames it as a divinely ordained and scientifically justified institution. Stephens rejected the notion, held by many of the Founders, that slavery was an evil destined to fade, and instead championed it as the cornerstone of a stable and enduring social order.

While Stephens touched on other grievances, the Cornerstone Speech unified the Confederacy’s cause by explicitly tying its existence to the preservation and defense of slavery. It crystallized the ideological framework that underpinned secession, affirming that slavery was not merely a sectional issue but the defining principle of the Confederacy itself. This makes the speech a vital document for understanding both the Confederacy’s immediate motivations and the enduring legacy of its ideology.

Conclusion

The words of the Confederacy’s own leaders and representatives leave no room for ambiguity about the causes of secession and the Civil War. From South Carolina’s insistence that slavery was a non-negotiable cornerstone of the Union’s founding compact, to Mississippi’s assertion that slavery was “the greatest material interest of the world,” to Georgia’s depiction of slavery as essential to its societal and economic survival, and Texas’s explicit tie of slavery to racial supremacy—these declarations collectively paint an undeniable picture. The preservation and expansion of slavery were not merely among the grievances of the Southern states; they were the defining issue.

Alexander H. Stephens's Cornerstone Speech ties these threads together into a singular, unapologetic declaration. Stephens did not frame slavery as one of several concerns. He proclaimed it as the very foundation upon which the Confederacy was built, elevating the subjugation of African Americans to the level of a moral, philosophical, and political imperative. This was not a hidden agenda; it was a public statement of purpose, made at the highest levels of the Confederate government.

The often-cited argument that the Civil War was about “states’ rights” is, at best, a distortion of history and, at worst, an intentional misrepresentation. As these documents repeatedly show, when the Confederacy spoke of “states’ rights,” it was almost always in the context of defending slavery. There is no meaningful distinction to be made between the two in the context of these documents. The Confederacy’s leaders did not seek to expand or protect states’ rights as an abstract principle; they sought to expand and protect slavery.

Considering this overwhelming evidence, it is irrational to argue that the Civil War was fought for reasons other than slavery. No other issue received comparable attention in these declarations or in the speeches of Confederate leaders. The Confederacy’s own words make clear that slavery was not a side issue or a contributing factor—it was the issue.

History demands that we confront the truth, even when it is uncomfortable. The Civil War was a conflict born out of the South’s commitment to maintaining and expanding the institution of slavery and the racial hierarchies that sustained it. To deny this is not only to misinterpret the past but to risk misunderstanding the forces that continue to shape our society today. Only by facing this history with clarity and honesty can we hope to move forward with integrity.

Sources

The following primary documents serve as the foundation for this analysis of the Civil War's causes, reflecting the expressed motivations of the seceding states and Confederate leadership:

Declarations of Secession and Ordinances:

1. South Carolina: Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union: Full Text (Yale Law School's Avalon Project)

2. Mississippi Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union: Full Text (American Battlefield Trust)

3. Georgia: Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Georgia to Secede from the Union: Full Text (American Battlefield Trust)

4. Texas: A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union: Full Text (American Battlefield Trust)

Confederate Leadership:

• Alexander H. Stephens's Cornerstone Speech (March 21, 1861):

  • Full Text (American Battlefield Trust)

Comprehensive Collection:

• Secession Acts of the Thirteen Confederate States: Compilation (American Battlefield Trust)