Replies

FLT-bird: "South Carolina attached the Address of Robert Barnwell Rhett to their declaration of causes which went on at length about the grossly unequal tariffs and federal government expenditures even though this was not unconstitutional and refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution was unconstitutional and provided the basis for saying the Northern states had violated the compact."

As discussed previously, if we include Rhett's address as the fifth original "Reasons for secession" document (along with SC, MS, GA & TX), it is the only one which focuses serious attention on reasons other than slavery.
But even in Rhett's address, slavery is discussed twice as much as the other alleged reasons combined.

FLT-bird: "According to the 1860 US Census, South Carolina had 26,701 slave owners out of a total free population of 301,302 or 8.86% of all free people owned slaves.
Mississippi had 30,943 slave owners out of a total free population of 354,674 or 8.72% of all free people owned slaves."

Totally irrelevant, if not technically bogus.
That's because no slave-holder lived by himself, all had families and in those days most were quite large families.
This site gives a realistic estimate as to how many families, and what percent of the totals, owned slaves.
Mississippi and South Carolina lead the list at 49% and 46% respectively -- almost half.

What it means is that everybody who could afford to owned slaves and everybody who didn't had close family & friends that did.
In that culture slave-holding was not simply economics, it was a "way of life" that all aspired to participate in.

FLT-bird: "Nope. Your denial is simply false.
Yes the South was indeed prosperous. "

You do realize, right, that in those two sentences you contradicted yourself?
My point was that in 1860 average Deep South whites were better off than anyone else on Earth.
First you claim that "is simply false" then substantially affirm it.

FLT-bird: "It would have been far more wealthy had it not been economically exploited by the Northern states to pay for their industrialization."

First, there was no "exploitation" that Southerners did not themselves agree to -- see previous posts on Democrat rule in Washington, DC.
Second, claims of "unfair" or "undue" burdens on the South are simply false.
Third, it's hard to have any sympathy for claims of "exploitation" from people whose whole economy is based on exploiting slave-labor.

FLT-bird: "Various Northern states enacted various laws to prevent compliance with federal agents attempt’s to recapture escaped slaves."

Just as today Democrats pass "sanctuary cities" laws, and so long as Democrats rule in Washington, DC, they get away with it.
When the other party takes over, it becomes more difficult.
And that was the case until 1861: Democrats ruled Washington, DC, and enforced the laws they considered important, including fugitive slave laws.

FLT-bird: "It was more a means of saying that the Northern states had broken the deal (which they did)."

But the Compromise of 1850 shifted responsibility from states to Federal enforcement, and Democrats ruled Washington, DC.
If they truly wanted stricter enforcement, they could have done it.
Even in 1860, state laws did not nullify Federal law.

But the key point here is that South Carolina specifically had no standing in the Fugitive Slave case because, so far as we know, there were no South Carolina runaway slaves being protected by Northern state personal liberty laws.
Indeed, there were no court cases period brought by South Carolina to redress its grievances against those deplorable, irredeemable baskets of Northern Republicans.

FLT-bird: "It is for each state to determine necessity and not for anybody else.
Also it is completely false to say no Founder ever supported unilateral secession.
I have provided numerous quotes showing this to be false already."

Sorry, but there are no legitimate quotes from any Founder supporting unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
And James Madison spelled out why, here.

Your claim that states themselves can determine their own "necessity" might be worth considering, except that in late 1860 there was no "necessity" of any kind remotely resembling the conditions of 1776 to which our Founders referred by their word "necessary".
Even a highly sympathetic Doughfaced Northern Democratic like President Buchanan could not agree that secessionists had any constitutionally valid reasons.

As discussed previously, if we include Rhett’s address as the fifth original “Reasons for secession” document (along with SC, MS, GA & TX), it is the only one which focuses serious attention on reasons other than slavery.
But even in Rhett’s address, slavery is discussed twice as much as the other alleged reasons combined.

Desperate attempt to tapdance noted. Rhett laid out in exhaustive detail the economic exploitation of the Southern states by the Northern states and how the slavery issue was used as a wedge issue by Northern interests to accomplish and further their sectional partisan economic legislation.

Totally irrelevant, if not technically bogus.
That’s because no slave-holder lived by himself, all had families and in those days most were quite large families.
This site gives a realistic estimate as to how many families, and what percent of the totals, owned slaves.
Mississippi and South Carolina lead the list at 49% and 46% respectively — almost half.

What it means is that everybody who could afford to owned slaves and everybody who didn’t had close family & friends that did.
In that culture slave-holding was not simply economics, it was a “way of life” that all aspired to participate in.

Those are the actual numbers from the US Census. They are directly relevant - its just that they are damned inconvenient for you and your bogus propaganda.

I’ve seen these ridiculous estimates of a large percentage of families owning slaves before. They are the product of PC Revisionists trying to pull numbers out of their azzes by baking in a bunch of assumptions......among them that there could only be one slaveholder per family. Anecdotally we know this was often not the case as children were gifted slaves, wives inherited slaves etc etc. There could and often were multiple slaveowners in one family. Of course if that were to be admitted, the percentage of families estimated to own slaves would plummet and we obviously can’t have that now can we!

The South was prosperous by and large. It had been far more prosperous in relative terms during the early years of the republic but as Senator Thomas Hart Benton explained, the North benefited greatly by using federal legislation to transfer Southerners’ money into their own pockets.

“Before... the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? ... Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this.” ——Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton

First, there was no “exploitation” that Southerners did not themselves agree to — see previous posts on Democrat rule in Washington, DC.
Second, claims of “unfair” or “undue” burdens on the South are simply false.
Third, it’s hard to have any sympathy for claims of “exploitation” from people whose whole economy is based on exploiting slave-labor.

Firstly BS. Southerners had long bitterly complained about high tariffs and unequal federal government expenditures. Those were hardly passed because they controlled everything as you claim...somehow....despite the fact that they were in the minority. Secondly, BS. As I’ve amply demonstrated the South was being economically exploited by the Northern states and everybody knew it. I’ve provided numerous quotes supporting this. Thirdly, most Southerners did not own slaves. And how much sympathy should anybody have for Northern slave traders who derived enormous profits from slave trading which continued illicitly long after it was prohibited in 1810 and who were only too happy to profit again servicing goods produced in part at least by slave labor?

Just as today Democrats pass “sanctuary cities” laws, and so long as Democrats rule in Washington, DC, they get away with it.
When the other party takes over, it becomes more difficult.
And that was the case until 1861: Democrats ruled Washington, DC, and enforced the laws they considered important, including fugitive slave laws.

The attempt to draw parallels with the political parties of today are ridiculous. Neither party in the mid 19th century were remotely like either party today. Your argument that Southerners controlled everything in Washington DC despite not having as many votes is pure fantasy.

But the Compromise of 1850 shifted responsibility from states to Federal enforcement, and Democrats ruled Washington, DC.
If they truly wanted stricter enforcement, they could have done it.
Even in 1860, state laws did not nullify Federal law.

Various Northern states refused to cooperate with federal authorities, passed laws that hindered the work of federal agents etc etc. South Carolina and all the other Southern states could accurately say that the Northern states had deliberately obstructed recapture and return of escaped slaves as the Fugitive slave clause of the Constitution required.

Sorry, but there are no legitimate quotes from any Founder supporting unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.

Your claim that states themselves can determine their own “necessity” might be worth considering, except that in late 1860 there was no “necessity” of any kind remotely resembling the conditions of 1776 to which our Founders referred by their word “necessary”.
Even a highly sympathetic Doughfaced Northern Democratic like President Buchanan could not agree that secessionists had any constitutionally valid reasons.

This artificial distinction you are trying to draw between necessity and at pleasure is entirely fictitious. Each state determines necessity for itself. Obviously the Southern states in 1860 and 61 felt the necessity was as great as they had felt it was in 1776.

There were numerous statements by Jefferson and various other presidents as well as the New England Hartford Convention as well as a textbook used at West Point saying a state may unilaterally secede.

To coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised…. Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself – a government that can only exist by the sword? ~ Alexander Hamilton, during the Constitutional Convention.

“The future inhabitants of [both] the Atlantic and Mississippi states will be our sons. We think we see their happiness in their union, and we wish it. Events may prove otherwise; and if they see their interest in separating why should we take sides? God bless them both, and keep them in union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better.” – Thomas Jefferson

“If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation” over “union,” “I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’” Thomas Jefferson

It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed. —William Rawle, Chapter 32, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America

“If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers.” (The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, Old Saybrook, Connecticut: Konecky & Konecky, 1992, reprint, p. 131)

“If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted.” (The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, p. 130)

President John Tyler likewise believed a state had the right to leave the Union. So did President John Quincy Adams who tried to organize the New England states to secede in the 1820’s.

The Northern Federalists’ Hartford Convention declared in 1814 that a state had the right to secede in cases of “absolute necessity” (Alan Brinkley, Richard Current, Frank Freidel, and T. Harry Williams, American History: A Survey, Eighth Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1991, p. 230).

“Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Abraham Lincoln January 12, 1848 in a speech in the US House of Representatives. OOPS! How did that one get there? How embarrassing!