The secession statements of Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and 
Texas are available at htttp://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html 
and are most interesting. Georgia's is almost solely a rant in favor 
of slavery and against the anti-slavery attitudes of the north. 
Slavery is  a significant issue in the statements of Mississippi and 
South Carolina, and, along with the attitude that "y'all are against 
us just because we hold slaves"," is well represented in the Texas 
statement. I've not found on-line sources for statements of the other 
nine seceding states, but I'd be willing to bet that slavery was, at 
the very least, one of the major concerns they all addresse.

Robert

>X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1302818704-0dd8e5390001-yTOJpu
>X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: [log in to unmask]
>X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: 129.219.19.183l
>X-ASG-Whitelist: Client
>X-Originating-IP: [65.81.146.136]
>From: "Linda Derry" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: "'HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY'" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: RE: FW: Today in history
>Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:05:00 -0500
>X-ASG-Orig-Subj: RE: FW: Today in history
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
>Thread-Index: AQHL+WwglfQaCZ7SX0iP2qbQAcDIAZRd642AgAALvgD//6f2AIAAA3QQgABAO6A=
>X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at asu.edu
>Sender: [log in to unmask]
>List-Help: <https://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=HISTARCH>,
>            <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>List-Owner: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>List-Archive: <https://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=HISTARCH>
>X-Barracuda-Connect: lists.asu.edu[129.219.19.183]
>X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1302818704
>X-Barracuda-Encrypted: AES256-SHA
>X-Barracuda-URL: http://129.219.117.210:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
>X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at asu.edu
>X-pstn-neptune: 0/0/0.00/0
>X-pstn-levels:     (S:99.90000/99.90000 CV:99.9000 FC:95.5390 
>LC:95.5390 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:97.0282 C:98.6951 )
>X-pstn-settings: 4 (1.5000:1.5000) s cv gt3 gt2 gt1 r p m c
>X-pstn-addresses: from <[log in to unmask]> [2121/86]
>X-RCPT-TO: <[log in to unmask]>
>X-IMail-ThreadID: 6f91024a0000b5cd
>
>Hi Ya'll,
>
>As historical archaeologists, we should all agree that it is always good to
>work with PRIMARY documents, right?
>
>With that in mind, I have to say that from where I'm sitting, the old Black
>Belt or cotton belt of Alabama, it sure does appear that slaveholding took
>center stage in the primary documents that speak to this issue.   ( as
>opposed to the rationalization that appeared along with the "Lost Cause"
>narrative in the late 19th/ early 20th century.)
>
>Nothing could be more primary that  Alabama's secession ordinance, so I
>looked it up,  and it  does state a need for a union of "Slave holding
>States of the South" and then at the convention they refer to the new nation
>as "a Southern slaveholding Confederacy."
>
>I'm betting that secession documents in most Southern states have similar
>statements - So, if you hold to the state's rights point of view, why not
>test your theory by locating this ordinance for your state. (& find the
>complete ordinance, not something excerpted by folks with agendas).
>
>
>Just thought it was worth throwing out to the list - I REALLY don't  want to
>argue about the cause of the war  (since I live with this rhetoric on a
>daily basis)  but was just thinking that in our professional community,
>these secession documents ought to be our reference point rather than stuff
>silly old arm chair historians  or journalists write!  <SMILE>
>
>
>Linda Derry
>Site Director
>Old Cahawba
>719 Tremont St.
>Selma, AL 36701
>ph. 334/875-2529
>fax. 334/877-4253
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of geoff
>carver
>Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 12:40 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: FW: Today in history
>
>I keep wondering what rights other than the "right to own slaves" was
>covered under "states rights" anyway.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>He contends that the war was always about slavery from the very beginning
>but why after the war concluded, historians, politicians, and the media
>ignored or downplayed that reality, be they northerners or southerners