Floridians mark anniversary of joining the Confederacy

The Florida Times-Union ^ | January 10, 2011 - 12:00am | Kate Howard

[rustbucket]

First, the Federal government's alleged failure to vigorously enough enforce Fugitive Slave Laws can hardly be called an "oppression" or "usurpation."

What explains the thousand or more fugitive slaves openly living in Chicago? Chicago was the equivalent of a sanctuary city. Why didn't the Feds go get those slaves? What explains the large fugitive slave community in New Bedford, Massachusetts [Link], in a state where the last fugitive slave was returned in 1854 accompanied by the murder of one of his guards by a mob? Where were the Feds enforcing the law in Massachusetts after 1854?

And what percentage of those were soon recaptured in the Upper South and Border States?

I've seen a couple of estimates for how many slaves escaped in the 1850s. Ten thousand from one source. Tens of thousands from my New Bedford link above with 20,000 of those going all the way to Canada. I've seen an estimate that the number returned from the North was about 1,000. A number of those were probably where the master tracked them down and returned them South without going through the legal process. The legal process was expensive -- in Massachusetts it cost more than what the slave was worth because of the Massachusetts personal liberty law requirements.

So Northern Fugitive Slave Laws were not a material problem for the Deep South slave-holders before 1860 and did not suddenly become some big problem in 1860. They were an excuse, and nothing more.

The Constitution would not have been ratified by Georgia and South Carolina and maybe other states had the return of fugitive slaves not been agreed to by Northern states. But apparently pledges by Northern states were not worth much.

So Northern Fugitive Slave Laws were not a material problem for the Deep South slave-holders before 1860 and did not suddenly become some big problem in 1860. They were an excuse, and nothing more.

If I ignore my Constitutional duty to pay income tax, the Feds would come down on me with the force of law. If Northern states ignored their Constitutional duty to return fugitive slaves (immediately, said the Supreme Court in 1843), it was no big deal.

Second, this Texas complaint has nothing to do with Federal government "usurpations or abuses" and so can in no way be considered "justly" to have the effect of "mutual consent."

It certainly met the requirement of being "necessary to their happiness."

That being said, I've made the point that getting slaves returned from the North would have become even more difficult after successful secession than before. The North could stop returning any escaped slaves from the South. Then, of course, the South could start recovering the value of those fugitive slaves by charging tolls on traffic going North on the Mississippi River. Stopping abolitionists from coming into the South to foment trouble like they apparently did in Texas and elsewhere might also get more difficult. Abolitionists could hide in sanctuaries just across the border in the North and make forays into the South -- shades of Laos, Cambodia, and present day Pakistan.

Still better for the South than being in a Union where they were treated like colonies to enrich the North.

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway: "After reading most of your bloated postings I've concluded that they could easily be reduced to two words: Bull Shit. ;~)"

What a strange coincidence... ;-)

[BroJoeK]

mstar: "but I do believe it was you that began the discussion concerning Jesus' intent in Luke 14;31.
If you can possibly wade through this "cut n paste" library you've posted on this thread, you MIGHT find it."

I remember perfectly well the sequence of posts.
My original point is that it was utterly stupid and unnecessary for the Deep South slave-holders to provoke, declare and wage war against the United States.

So, in looking for a respected authority to confirm my opinion, I thought the quote from Jesus perfectly well satisfied.

But instead of any comprehension on your part, I received a lecture on Biblical exegesis and a demand to proclaim my Christian credentials!

Let me put it to you this way: you put the wrong record on your player.
Take that record off, and put on the one which starts off: I think I understand what you are saying here, but possibly disagree with your intended point for the following reasons.
Then fill in your reasons, and we can have a discussion or debate, or who knows, maybe agreement... ;-)

[cowboyway]

What a strange coincidence... ;-)

A strange coincidence would be more correctly defined as one of your replies being accurate and concise.

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway: "Also, I can understand how admirers of obama would fall under the spell of brojoek, becoming mesmerized by the length of his posts and not the quality or accuracy of them, so I guess you and the rest of the coven get a pass, especially since you're all still in mourning."

Pal, I fully understand that it's one h*ll of a lot easier for someone like you to just blast away with insults, instead of actually taking the time and careful work to begin answering points you disagree with.

And that would be especially true if you had no answers.

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway: "Is that you, obama? Is that you, bro?"

No pal, that's just you, cowboyway, whistling Dixie past the graveyard of your dead arguments! ;-)

[mstar]

But instead of any comprehension on your part, I received a lecture on Biblical exegesis and a demand to proclaim my Christian credentials!

No I did not ask you for your Christian credentials I only gave my opinion concerning this particular passage. My choice of the word "you" instead of "an individual" may have been misleading.

I have posted the exchange below for your review.


BroJoeK; "Now, if you note carefully what Jesus actually said in that quote, it's really just a warning to "kings" to be careful before you send your outnumbered army into battle. He does not say "don't do it," or even as the Chinese genius Sun Tzu said: never fight an unnecessary war. Jesus is only really saying: think, for God's sake, before you jump into something stupid!"

mstar: "I believe if this verse is taken in its proper context, you will find Jesus is continuing the theme of the Bible. . .

in the "natural" you don't have a chance. . . the odds/numbers are against you.

You REALLY need to accept Jesus Christ's Gift of Grace complete with His new birth or you will not make it."

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "Who decides "oppression" and "injury" in this case, the states who were injured or exploited or the states doing that injury or exploitation?
You've made it clear that you don't consider that the Southern states were oppressed or injured in any serious way by the Federal government -- not serious enough anyway to justify secession.
I disagree."

There is simply no serious definition of words like "oppression," "usurpation" or "injury" which define the situation in 1860 as any different from five or ten years before that.

Think of it this way: if you were being "oppressed" or "injured" in, say, 1850 and didn't secede then, would that not tell us the "oppression" and "injury" were not serious enough to justify the drastic step of dissolving the union?

And if in, say, 1860 basic conditions had not changed how then did what was acceptable in 1850 suddenly become so intensely unacceptable that now the only possible remedy is immediate, unilateral, unapproved and unconditional secession?

rustbucket: "IMO, the tariff would have been the clearest example of large injury to the South up to that point in time.
The tariff was something Northern states accomplished through the Federal Congress.
The only way out of the negative effects of the tariff for the South was to secede.
The South could no longer defeat tariff increases in Congress.
Lest you think it was a non issue, here are some contemporary comments about the tariff."

Here's where the bogus-ness of your arguments should be obvious, even to you!
First key point: US tariffs have gone up and down throughout our history, and never resulted in threats of secession.
By 1860 tariffs had been slowly reduced, not increased, from a high of over 50% in 1830 to a low of now 17%.
Those reductions came because that's what the South wanted, and the Federal government was highly sensitive to the South's needs.

The Morrill Tariff proposal of 1860 sought a modest increase, from 17% to 25%.
And as I've pointed out now several times, it was opposed by the South, but not solidly so.
The South was somewhat split on the issue -- some voted for it, but many more simply did not show up to vote. As a result, the bill passed the House.

But there were enough Southern non-votes that could have defeated the bill, had the effort been made, which it was not.

Perhaps that was simply considered unnecessary, since, after-all there was no way Morrill could pass the Senate or be signed by Southern-stooge President Buchanan, right?

And normally, that's just what would have happened.
But now we throw in the wild-cards: Southern "fire-eaters" who split up their Democrat party thus engineering a historic electoral defeat in 1860, resulting in Southerners leaving Congress, so the rump-Senate passed Morrill and stooge-Buchanan signed the bill, because, after all, his Southern supporters had all walked off.

But I'll say again: the bottom line is, all this talk about the Morrill Tariff as a Reason for Secession is ludicrous -- since it was not mentioned in any of the Deep South slave-holders secession documents.

In short: Morrill was not a reason for secession, it is just an excuse made up after the fact.
The only real reason, the only reason that mattered enough to drive Deep South slave-holders to drastic actions was protecting the future and market values of their investments in slavery.

rustbucket: "However, the South had tried the tariff issue before and found that it didn't impact or unite the Southern people as did slavery.
The future economic threat of abolition to slavery, the basis of the Southern economy, was enormous and far larger than the tariff.
In their declaration of causes document, Mississippi estimated the cost to the South of eliminating slavery to be 4 billion dollars."

As long as you argue that slavery was the root cause of secession, then we don't disagree.
But it was not some totally peripheral issue, like Northern Fugitive Slave Laws -- which caused no material damage to the Deep South slave-holders.

Rather, it was the Deep South's perception of potential threat to the future of slavery, represented by the 1860 election of Abolitionist Republicans, which caused the slave-holders to immediately declare themselves seceded, then provoke war, then declare war and soon wage war in every Union state and territory adjacent to the Confederacy.

[rockrr]

What difference does the amount of time or effort spent on a reply make? Why do you feeeeeeeeeeeeeeel the need to exaggerate someones posts into something excessive, unnatural, and therefore somehow wrong?

Rustbucket obviously takes his time to put together thoughtful, well reasoned posts. Is he likewise “spending all his waking hours” on his posts? If it is reprehensible conduct for one to post anything more than a pokie-ish “you suck!” why isn’t it reprehensible for the other?

Do you approach everything in this world as haphazardly as you do posting at FreeRepublic?

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "What explains the thousand or more fugitive slaves openly living in Chicago? Chicago was the equivalent of a sanctuary city.
Why didn't the Feds go get those slaves?
What explains the large fugitive slave community in New Bedford, Massachusetts [Link], in a state where the last fugitive slave was returned in 1854 accompanied by the murder of one of his guards by a mob?
Where were the Feds enforcing the law in Massachusetts after 1854?"

For sake of argument, I'll presume you are correctly reporting that only a thousand fugitive slaves were living in Chicago circa 1860.

Only 1,000!
Out of around four million total slaves, only about a thousand had managed to escape to Chicago. Amazing!

And where, exactly, did these fugitive slaves come from -- the Deep South seceding states of South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, etc?
No, of course not, they had to come from the Border States like Kentucky and Missouri, which never did secede.

In short, the Deep South slave-holders had no legal standing to complain about these fugitive slaves in Chicago, since virtually none of the fugitives could have belonged to Deep South slave-holders.

And how many fugitive slaves lived in New Bedford, a few hundred?
And did any of those come from the Deep South?
No, of course not.
They came from Border States like Delaware or Maryland, which never did secede.

So it's a bogus complaint.

rustbucket: "I've seen a couple of estimates for how many slaves escaped in the 1850s.
Ten thousand from one source. Tens of thousands from my New Bedford link above with 20,000 of those going all the way to Canada.
I've seen an estimate that the number returned from the North was about 1,000."

Ten thousand over ten years is maybe 1,000 per year, out of circa 4,000,000 total slaves.
And again: how many of these came from Deep South seceding states?
The answer has to be: virtually none, since to reach the safety of sanctuary in Massachusetts, they would first have to escape

1. their own Deep South states (i.e., South Carolina), then
2. the slave-holding Upper South (i.e., North Carolina and Virginia), then
3. the slave-holding Border States (i.e., Maryland and Delaware) before even reaching, say,
4. Pennsylvania or New Jersey, much less sanctuary in
5. New York & Massachusetts.

So most of those fugitive slaves had to come from states which never seceded.
That's why your argument is bogus.

rustbucket: "The Constitution would not have been ratified by Georgia and South Carolina and maybe other states had the return of fugitive slaves not been agreed to by Northern states.
But apparently pledges by Northern states were not worth much."

No evidence has ever been presented demonstrating how either Georgia or South Carolina suffered any material harm from Northern Fugitive Slave Laws.

So your argument is still bogus.

rustbucket: "If Northern states ignored their Constitutional duty to return fugitive slaves (immediately, said the Supreme Court in 1843), it was no big deal."

Of course it was "no big deal", because it literally was "no big deal" to the Deep South slave-holders whose runaways were always recaptured in the next county, or the next one, two or three slave-holding states to the north before they could ever even reach "sanctuary" in some Northern state.

rustbucket: "It certainly met the requirement of being "necessary to their happiness." "

But the claim of being "necessary to their happiness" was never used in any Deep South slave-holders' secession documents.

rustbucket: "That being said, I've made the point that getting slaves returned from the North would have become even more difficult after successful secession than before."

Which yet again tells us their whole argument about Fugitive Slave Laws was bogus to the max.
It's not why Deep South slave-holders seceded.

Furthermore, if Deep South slave-holding states like South Carolina or Georgia were truly, truly concerned about the "major problem" of runaway slaves, don't you suppose that they might first attempt to resolve it through state subsidies for interstate bounty hunters?

So it wasn't all about Fugitive Slave Laws.
The Deep South seceded to protect the future of slavery against their perceived fears of what the Abolitionist Republicans might do in the future.

That clearly is not a definition of "oppression" or "injury," but rather closely meets the criteria for unjustified secession "at pleasure".

[cowboyway]

Have you bothered to read brojoe's tripe or has the big, bright shiny object cast a quasi-hypnotic spell on your pitiful existence?

I'm sure that you would agree with his inaccurate prose but's it's nothing more than a slightly more elegant version of mikefromohio.

But the big question is: why am I even replying to a serial liar?

That is all.

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway: "Have you bothered to read brojoe's tripe or has the big, bright shiny object cast a quasi-hypnotic spell on your pitiful existence?"

Just so you know, since first coming to Free Republic in 2003, I've never before complained to a moderator about about someone's post against me or my arguments.

I did question cowboyway's post #408, which seemed mabye a bit "over the line," and now I guess the moderator agreed.

Pal, I really don't want to get you banned from Free Republic. I suspect that probably deep down inside you're really a good person.

But you might want to focus more attention on your actual case, facts, reasons & arguments, and less on insults.
Yes, I know that takes more time, but it's less likely to yet your posts removed... ;-)

[rockrr]

It’s immensely evident that you’re just not having a very nice day today. I hope that tomorrow goes better for you...;-)

[rustbucket]

Rustbucket obviously takes his time to put together thoughtful, well reasoned posts. Is he likewise “spending all his waking hours” on his posts?

Thanks. FR history discussions seem like bar room shoving contests at times. I prefer to search my history archives, old newspapers, and books before posting. It's a good hobby for someone with an interest in history.

There is a backlog of posts on this thread that I need to reply to, but I am busy with other things and can't always get to them quickly. If it sometimes seems like I'm posting in my sleep, I probably am.

[cowboyway]

I've never before complained to a moderator about about someone's post against me or my arguments. I did question cowboyway's post #408, which seemed mabye a bit "over the line

The truth has always been a 'bit over the line' for yankees steeped in their mythology.

Pal, I really don't want to get you banned from Free Republic.

I don't believe that. I think that is precisely why you contacted the mods but all he did was pull a post that offended your delicate sensibilities. You guys have been on the warpath trying to get one of us Rebs banned since your bro, non-sequitur, got the ban hammer. (BTW, if you actually thought that post# 408 was 'over the top' then you've got the intestinal fortitude of a Japanese schoolgirl.)

But you might want to focus more attention on your actual case, facts, reasons & arguments, and less on insults.

Every one of your posts can be summed up with the last two lines from your last post to rustbucket, which you continue to post over and over and over and over...:

"The Deep South seceded to protect the future of slavery against their perceived fears of what the Abolitionist Republicans might do in the future. That clearly is not a definition of "oppression" or "injury," but rather closely meets the criteria for unjustified secession "at pleasure". "

In the post that you took offense to and tried to get me banned for I simply pointed out that every one of your bloated posts were just repetitive tripe. Sorry if it hurt your ego.

I suspect that probably deep down inside you're really a good person.

You should put up a barf alert before you post crap like that. (I think I'll hit the abuse button...)

Yes, I know that takes more time, but it's less likely to yet your posts removed...

Oh, please. How much time does it take to post the same bilge ad infinitum, a la, brojoek?

I know, I know, you're gonna complain about this post, also. Oh well.....

[cowboyway]

It’s immensely evident that you’re just not having a very nice day today. I hope that tomorrow goes better for you...;-)

It's soothing to know that you feeeeeeeeeeeeeeel my pain.

[rustbucket]

And California has long wanted its expenditures in imprisoning and educating illegal immigrants reimbursed by the federal government, and with about the same results. States can't just send a bill to the federal government.

Sure they can. It's a lot of trouble, but sometimes states win. In 1994 California sued the Federal government to reimburse $377M in costs for jail expenses for illegal aliens. See: California sues US for reimbursement. Other states also sued for reimbursement of jail expenses.

California ended up getting some $252M from the Federal government in 1996. See: U.S. Releases Disputed Jail Costs to States.

So your vision is of a federal government financing itself by selling land to slaveowners and an American West settled by those slaveowners and their slaves instead of by homesteaders. Okay.

My thought was that the Federal Government should have charged each homesteader some cash rather than giving huge amounts of public land to homesteaders who did not pay cash but worked the land for five years. I respect the labor that the poor homesteaders did, but giving them the land in return for zero cash was just another way of benefiting the constituents of Northern politicians and limiting the number of future slave states. Cash income would have offset the need for so much tariff income and reduced the tariff burden on Southerners. Some land was sold for cash or was given to railroads, but I suspect a lot of the land went to the small farmer.

This "free" land program was advocated by the short-lived Free Soil Party of the North, whose members became Republicans. It didn't matter that Southern money had been used to purchase the land, the federal government gave it away in return for labor primarily to poor Northerners and immigrants. It is an example of Northern sectional aggrandizement, one, however, that is equivalent to apple pie, baseball, and motherhood in some people's eyes.

Just out of curiosity, isn't one of the standard Lost Causer talking points that slavery wasn't going to expand any further because the western lands weren't suitable for slave-labor activities?

Wheat and corn were not as labor intensive as cotton and tobacco, so that might have limited the Northern extension of slavery. And I've read that slaves were roughly comparable in cost to local white labor in the Upper Midwest, so there was not a big incentive to own slaves. I suspect that slaves could have been economical to employ in mines in the mountain west. Here's a link to slaves in the California gold rush: Link. As the site says: "Many of California's delegates [to a convention about statehood]were from slave states, but they were also miners. They had experienced the hard physical toil of digging for gold and the majority thought slavery an unfair advantage in the mines."

[bushpilot1]

The Trojan horse was introduced amongst us..it is only a matter of time before the belly of the beast opens...

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway: "The truth has always been a 'bit over the line' for yankees steeped in their mythology."

Your post #408 was nothing but insults, of the sort that are often removed by moderators.
Over the past seven years I have myself occasionally crossed "over the line" and had one or two postings removed.
So I have a rough idea where that "line" is.
When you start throwing out baseless insults, you've crossed it, pal.

cowboyway: "I don't believe that. I think that is precisely why you contacted the mods but all he did was pull a post that offended your delicate sensibilities."

Just guessing here: to get banned from Free Republic, you'd need a fairly long history of somewhat offensive postings, or just one outrageously offensive posting.
So an occasional removal is not going to get you banned.
But it might serve to warn you to control your temper, and words, a little better.

cowboyway: "You guys have been on the warpath trying to get one of us Rebs banned since your bro, non-sequitur, got the ban hammer."

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never tried to get anyone banned, and yours is the first post in seven years I've ever even questioned.
And that is all I did -- question it.
Apparently the moderator also saw it as offensive.
You might want to keep that in mind.

cowboyway: "In the post that you took offense to and tried to get me banned for I simply pointed out that every one of your bloated posts were just repetitive tripe. Sorry if it hurt your ego."

Your post was far more offensive than you are now willing to admit, and it wasn't my ego that you hurt.
What you hurt with posts like that is the reputation and good name of Free Republic.
For that reason, and no other, a moderator will remove such posts.
Please remember that in the future.

cowboyway: "You should put up a barf alert before you post crap like that. (I think I'll hit the abuse button...)"

LOL... what's your problem, pal? I paid you a great compliment, and all you can think to do is hit the "abuse" button? ;-)

cowboyway: "Oh, please. How much time does it take to post the same bilge ad infinitum, a la, brojoek?
I know, I know, you're gonna complain about this post, also. Oh well....."

Here is the key point: while you've just put endless effort into criticizing me personally, you've presented not one single fact, reason or logic to actually refute anything I've ever posted.

And if your single greatest criticism is that I repeat the same arguments over and over, the simple answer is because people like you keep making the same claims over and over again.
Don't you agree, if it's good for the goose, it should be good for... well, you know who. ;-)