Replies

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

FLT-bird on Rhett's address: "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."

But the "desperation" and "tap dancing" are all yours, FRiend.
Sure, there's no disputing that Rhett discussed economic issues and unlike other "Reasons for secession" documents, he put them first.
But with economics mentioned, Rhett went back to the main issue, spending twice the effort on slavery that he did on all other issues combined.

FLT-bird "...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!"

And you talk about desperation and tap-dancing!
That's about as desperate a crock of tap-dancing as I've seen.
The fact is that 1860 era farming families, like today's, were typically quite large, with four, six or more children the norm, not exceptional.
And legal slave ownership would seldom be divided up amongst family members, regardless of their informal understandings.

But there's a more important argument here: why do you suppose the seven Deep South states quickly seceded, primarily over slavery, but no other slave-states did?
The answer is: because slavery was the primary concern in the Deep South, where nearly half of families owned slaves, but it was of much less concern in the Upper South (25%) and Border states, where slave-holding fell to 15% & below of families.
So the parts of the Upper South, at circa 25% of slave-holding families could be persuaded to secede by Civil War, but Border States at 15% or less refused to secede regardless.

So slavery explains everything, and all your hocus pocus about tariffs and "unequal spending" explains nothing.

FLT-bird "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"

This is at least the second quote of yours I have reason to question as legitimate, since, first, it has no date or other information included.
And second, Missouri Democrat Senator Benton would be less interested in Old South economics than in Western concerns.
Benton was a close ally of President Jackson, whose views on nullification & secession are well known.

But most important, Benton was that rarest of political animals: a Southern Democrat abolitionist!
This tells me the tone & tenor of the alleged quote are... well, off.

And since this is at least the second of your posted quotes I have reason to question, I'll put you on notice now that if I find another, I'll discount all of your alleged quotes as being nothing more than your own personal opinion gussied up to look like historical "fact".
So, take a little time to confirm them before posting nonsense.
Tell us the source and link.

FLT-bird : "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. "

Sorry, but the BS is all yours, FRiend.
First, the so-called Tariff of Abominations passed in 1828 over the objections of many New Englanders because of support from Southerners Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun.
Then, from 1830 to 1860 high tariffs were steadily reduced to some of the lowest ever, and that is because Southerners wanted lower tariffs -- which they got.
It demonstrates the political power of the South in Washington, DC.

As for alleged unequal Federal spending, the only real data we have says otherwise.

FLT-bird "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."

Setting aside your dubious quotes, what's left is political hyperbole, not confirmed data.
Further, it's beyond obscene for people whose wealth was built on exploiting slave-labor to complain of "exploitation" by a Federal government which they themselves largely controlled.

FLT-bird: "Thirdly, most Southerners did not own slaves."

In many regions of the Deep South especially, most white families did own slaves.
In other regions of the Upper South and Border States relatively few families owned slaves and that's why they remained loyal Unionists.

FLT-bird "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?"

Democrats all, close friends, family, political allies and business associates of Southern Democrat slave-holders.
Yes, I do have lots of sympathy for Democrats, but I don't want them in charge of anything important.

FLT-bird: "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."

That is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part, FRiend.
In fact, Democrats in 1860 were exactly like Democrats today in seeking to use Federal government to support privileged legal status for their own voters.
Only their constituencies have changed -- from slave-holders then to the descendants of slaves today.
But their goals & methods remain the same, including going berserk when voted out of power.

FLT-bird "Your argument that Southerners controlled everything in Washington DC despite not having as many votes is pure fantasy."

No, the fantasy is all yours in believing that majority Democrats were not ruled over by their majority Southerners.
Despite being a minority nationally, Southerners were the majority in the majority Democrat party, from about 1800 until secession in 1861.

And as the 1856 Sumner-Brooks affair demonstrated, when Southern majority votes were not enough, well then, the Slavepower had other...ah, methods to achieve their goals.

FLT-bird: "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."

But that was all nonsense, for several reasons:

In the 1850 Compromise, the South agreed to pass on jurisdiction over fugitive slaves from states to Federal government, meaning state actions were irrelevant to Constitutional obligations.
By Constitutional requirement, Federal law took precedence over state laws meaning Federal authorities could overrule whatever state impediments they encountered.
Repsonsiblity for Federal government since 1800 had been almost continuously in the hands of Southern Democrats and their Doughfaced Northern Democrat allies.
We must therefore assume those Democrats enforced their own fugitive slave laws as vigorously as such laws needed.
And if not, then they could blame nobody but themselves.
Deep South states like South Carolina had no legal standing whatever to complain about Federal fugitive slave law enforcement, since there were no known fugitive slaves from the Deep South being protected by Northern states.
And even if some were known, no legal actions were taken by Deep South states to redress their grievances.

FLT-bird: "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."

False, false & false.
It's not my distinction, it was drawn by Founders themselves, especially the Father of the Constitution, James Madison.
And the key point is that no Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession, at pleasure.
And the very real distinction between "at pleasure" and "necessity" is found in events of 1776 and such words as the Virginia ratification statement on "powers perverted to their injury or oppression".

No such conditions existed in 1860.
So 1860 Fire Eaters declared their secessions at pleasure.

FLT-bird: "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."

But there were none -- zero, nada -- statements by Founders supporting unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.

FLT-bird quoting: " '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"

Jefferson here expresses his own mutual consent, just as our Founders "seceded" from the old Articles of Confederation by mutual consent in 1788.
So reasons of necessity and mutual consent are approved by our Founders, but no Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure, which is what Fire Eaters in late 1860 began to do.

FLT-bird " '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"

Surely, yet another fake Jefferson quote, but regardless, it expresses nothing more than Jefferson's mutual consent, just as Founders "seceded" from the Articles of Confederation by mutual consent in 1788.
And we should well note that in reality, when Jefferson was faced with his VP Aaron Burr's attempts to secede Louisiana, Jefferson had Burr arrested and tried for treason.

So Jefferson well understood the real distinction between mutual consent and at pleasure disunion.

FLT-bird quoting: "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"

Two points here:

Rawle was not a Founder, though he was a district attorney who prosecuted members of the Whiskey Rebellion.
So Rawle clearly knew the differences between mutual consent and necessity versus rebellion at pleasure.
Rawle in 1829 does allow that, "The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state.", but even Rawle now decades into the secession debate, does not support unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.

So I'd consider Rawle second generation and as such an unreliable purveyor of our Founders' original intentions.

FLT-bird: " '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)"

Assuming for sake of discussion that this quote is not fake, then Grant's opinion is his own, not our Founders'.
And Grant clearly implies Founders did not foresee and therefore did not sanction it.
Indeed, Grant here talks about "withdrawal" as the alternative to civil war, when in reality, it lead directly to civil war.
The fact remains: no Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure, and yet that is just what Deep South Fire Eaters began to do in late 1860.

FLT-bird: "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."

This is at least the second posting of such claims, and they were addressed the first time:

President Tyler was a Southern slave-holder whose opinions corresponded to those of other slave-holders.
The claim that President Adams tried to organize secession in the 1820s is unsupported by any facts I've ever seen and contradicts his life-long devotion to the Union.

FLT-bird: "The Northern Federalists’ Hartford Convention declared in 1814 that a state had the right to secede in cases of 'absolute necessity' (Alan Brinkley... "

Exactly right!!
Which I'm certain was not your intention, obviously a serious mistake on your part, but here you've unintentionally hit on the truth of our Founders' Original Intent -- "secession" by mutual consent or absolute necessity only, not at pleasure.
But no "absolute necessity" existed in 1814 and neither did it in 1860.

FLT-bird quoting: "...'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!"

Thirty-eight year old Lincoln was here supporting Texans freedom from Mexico.
But notice his key word here: "revolutionize", strongly implying making war for freedom.
Lincoln nowhere implies that those who make such war must always win.