Floridians mark anniversary of joining the Confederacy

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

[cowboyway]

It was 150 years ago today that Florida declared itself sovereign from the United States.

Some Southern states have marked the anniversaries of secession with celebrations; in South Carolina, a secession gala was met with protests and controversy.

In Florida, a reenactment was quietly held by the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Tallahassee on Saturday, where about 40 volunteers dressed in period attire performed a condensed version of the convention. It was at that convention where a 62-7 vote led to secession in 1861, making Florida the third state to leave and later join the Confederate States of America.

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "You've said this many times in your posts. Are you trying to convince yourself?"

No, just trying to make a consistent & coherent argument.
And I don't think I've repeated my main points any more than the counter-arguements have been fully stated here.

So why all the complaints about repetition -- y'all have no quams about repeating your own arguments? ;-)

Anyway, thanks for a good post and lively discussion.
Don't have time to respond more now, will come back to it later.

[cowboyway]

thriving fugitive slave community in Chicago, which was a sanctuary city where the fugitive slave law was not enforced until April, 1861.

I'm assuming that our northern (ahem) FRiends would argue that Chicago did the right thing by providing a sanctuary for runaway slaves, even though it was against the law. After all, it was the moral thing to do because it gave the slaves that made it there a chance at a better way of life.

Given that, I must further assume that they agree and applaud San Francisco being a sanctuary city for illegal aliens, even though it's against the law. After all, it's the moral thing to do and it gives the border jumpers a chance at a better way of life, right yanks?

Now, I'm anxious to see how the yanks will twist out of this one, if they even try. They'll either provide more evidence of northern hypocrisy or reveal their left leaning social politics and their disregard for the rule of law.

[rustbucket]

Take your time. I’ll be out for two or three days.

My wife liked your “And of course his opinions are fixed solid, so you will never change his mind.”

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "But that's not to say that slaves didn't escape from the Deep South to the North."

In all the numbers I've seen, we're only talking about maybe one slave in a thousand escaping to freedom per year.
And 90% of those must have come from Upper South and Border States, not the Deep South which means: in the seceding Deep South, we're looking at maybe one slave in 10,000 successfully escaping per year.

So that cannot possibly be a major economic issue for the Deep South, it must be just an excuse.

rustbucket: "You and I have different takes on whether Northern states thumbing their noses at the South and the Constitution for many years on the return of fugitive slaves was sufficient for the South to secede.
This is like the girl who promised to be faithful but wasn't.
Why stay with such a girl?
Because she cheated only a time or two? I don’t know about you, but that would exceed my threshold for "necessary to my happiness." "

Since you are repeating your arguments, I'll somewhat restate my responses:

1. First, "necessary to my happiness" was never a reason given by Deep South slave-holders for their secession.
   Words like "oppression" and "abuse" were used instead.
   The question is whether some Far North states' Personal Freedom Laws can reasonably be said to constitute "oppression", etc. by the Federal Government?
   I say: in no way.

2. Second, states like South Carolina could not possibly have a serious complaint against, say, Massachusetts' Personal Freedom Laws, because very few if any of South Carolina's slaves ever escaped there.
   And where there is no material damage, there cannot be legal recourse.

3. Third, any legitimate complaints by, say, South Carolina must first be directed not at Massachusetts, but rather at other slave-holding states, beginning with North Carolina, then Virginia, then Maryland or Delaware, since those slave-holding states would have to be negligent in their Fugitive Slave duties before Massachusetts' Personal Liberty Law could have anything to do with it.

4. Fourth, even northern states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, New Jersey and New York had no Personal Liberty Laws, so slave-hunters were free to operate there and return fugitives before they could reach sanctuary further north.

5. Finally, please remember this: the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 required no effective proof that an alleged runaway really even belonged to a certain master before being legally returned.
   This especially got some northerners all riled up, and further demonstrates that Deep South slave-holders complaints were bogus from the beginning.

rustbucket: "The South had stayed in the Union until sectional government that was inimical to their interests took power.
I've cited Republican endorsement of the Helper Book's threats to eliminate slavery.
Why should the South stay any longer in a Union that promised to ruin the Southern economy?"

Pal, I don't know if you understand this, but you are here passionately agreeing with me -- powerfully making my case for me!

My basic argument is that the Deep South slave-holders did not secede over past "oppressions" or "usurpations", etc., but rather out of fears of what the Federal Government might do sometime in the future to threaten the existence and expansion of slavery.
And any argument of yours which supports my case, I'll wholeheartedly agree with.
So the only disagreement here is whether the Deep South slave-holders' secession in this case could be considered Constitutional, lawful or legitimate.

I say, based on our Founders' (i.e., Madison's) original intent, it was not Constitutional.

rustbucket: "They could no longer stop the punitive Morrill Tariff."

Now you're just not paying attention, are you?
As I've repeatedly pointed out:

1. Tariffs before Morrill were the lowest ever -- down from 50% before 1830 to now 17%.
2. Morrill was hardly "punitive," merely raising tariffs back toward their average historical levels -- 25%.
3. The South could easily have defeated the Morrill Tariff had they been united and determined in opposition,
4. Or, had they even showed up to vote,
5. And, had they not declared their secession before President Buchanan signed the bill.
6. The Morrill Tariff -- or any other tariff -- was not an issue mentioned in any Deep South slave-holders' secession document.

So your argument on Morrill is still bogus.

rustbucket: "If they kept waiting, the number of free states would get high enough to pass an amendment eliminating slavery.
Why wait to secede until they would be even more outnumbered by the Northern population?"

I'll repeat: the issue is not when did the Deep South slave-holders secede, but rather how did they secede -- was it Constitutionally, lawfully and legitimately?

I say "no" because it was done without "mutual consent" or material "oppression", "usurpation" or "abuse", etc., by the Federal Government.

rustbucket: "There already was a thriving fugitive slave community in Chicago, which was a sanctuary city where the fugitive slave law was not enforced until April, 1861.
Those "over one thousand fugitives" had come to Chicago in a three and a half month period.
At a slave price of $1,000, that's a million dollars worth of slaves escaping to one Northern city in three and a half months."

First, I think you're just guessing about those numbers, and could easily be exaggerating.
Second, Illinois had no Personal Freedom Laws, so regardless of what Chicago did (in 1850 Chicago's population was around 30,000), a Fugitive Slave could legally be returned from Illinois.
Third, 90% of these fugitive slaves had to come from the Border States and Upper South, not the Deep South seceding states.

So the Deep South slave-holders had no legal standing to complain.

rustbucket: "How about Northern states living up to their word?
Or is it that Northern states can ignore the Constitution when it suits them but claim that the Constitution requires that states can’t secede or need approval to do so when the Constitution says no such thing?
Oh, I forgot. We’re dealing with the North here. Sorry."

I'll repeat: a slave escaping from Deep South slave-holding states like South Carolina, Georgia or Alabama, etc., must

1. First avoid capture in the Upper South slave-holding states of North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, etc.,
2. Then avoid capture in the slave-holding Border States like Maryland & Kentucky,
3. Then avoid capture in Fugitive Slave enforcing Northern states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc., before they could ever reach a Personal Liberty Law, Far-North state like Michigan or Massachusetts.

Even in 1860, there were fewer Northern states without Personal Liberty Laws than with, and there were no Northern states adjacent to the South with such laws.

So the claim that those few Far-North states with Personal Liberty Laws represented some kind of material injury to Deep South slave-holders is still bogus.

Finally, pal, you need to ask yourself this question: was there no lawful, peaceful method short of secession for Deep South slave-holders to bring Far-North states with Personal Liberty Law to begin enforcing Fugitive Slave Laws?

The obvious answer is: of course there was, had that been their main objective.
For example, suppose the Deep South slave-holders had simply announced that they would seek to secede by "mutual consent" in one year if those states did not repeal their Personal Liberty Laws.

And we know those Far-North states would have repealed Personal Liberty laws, because that's just what they did do in April 1861.

rustbucket: "But I forget again. The North doesn't have to obey Supreme Court decisions it doesn't like."

What's so hilarious about your argument here is that today's Lost Causers all claim secession was all about the South's "States Rights."
In reality, it was more often claimed to be about stopping the "States Rights" of Far-North states to ignore Federal Fugitive Slave Laws.

rustbucket: "BTW, I have argued on these threads that slavery was the main cause or occasion of the South seceding.
I certainly interpreted that from some of the Southern papers before secession began."

On this much we agree.

rustbucket: "Slavery wasn't the only reason, of course.
As I pointed out above, the Texas secession document addressed sectional aggrandizement by the North:
"They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance."
Georgia talked about aggrandizement as well."

Not one of these other complaints can possibly have been serious enough to require immediate, unilateral, unapproved, unconditional and unconstitutional secession.
All were simple matters of day-in-day-out politics where one election can correct bad results from the previous, etc.

rustbucket: "I have also argued that the North instigated the war and fought it for economic reasons.
The North faced a serious balance of payments problem without the exports of Southern cotton.
Northern port business fell off greatly once the Morrill Tariff took effect.
Lincoln is reputed to have asked, "What about my revenue?" or words to that effect."

Pal, your attempts to psychoanalyze Lincoln after Fort Sumter (April 14, 1861) and the Deep South's Declaration of War on the United States (May 6)is a lot like trying to psychoanalyze Franklin Roosevelt after December 7, 1941.

All that psychobabble is irrelevant.
Which part of of the Deep South's firing on Fort Sumter and Declaring War on the United States do you suppose Lincoln did not understand, rustbucket?

[cowboyway]

“When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.”-— C. P. Snow

[cowboyway]

but rather out of fears of what the Federal Government might do sometime in the future

Is it your premise that concern over future events is not a legitimate reason to take preventative action?

In other words, do you believe that a person or group of people must actually be damaged before they seek remedy?

If so, then you must be livid about the billions of dollars spent on our military.

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway: "I'm assuming that our northern (ahem) FRiends would argue that Chicago did the right thing by providing a sanctuary for runaway slaves, even though it was against the law.
After all, it was the moral thing to do because it gave the slaves that made it there a chance at a better way of life."

Any student of history will tell you there's no way we can apply today's "politically correct" moral standards to our ancestors of even 150 years ago.

In 1860 slavery in the South was both Constitutional and legal, and for whatever it's worth, I don't think any American today should necessarily apologize, much less pay reparations for it.
Of course it was/is offensive and morally wrong by today's standards, but in 1860 virtually no one, even in the North, was willing to go to war to abolish slavery.

Further, Illinois was not a Personal Liberty Law state, so whatever sanctuary Chicago (1850 population: circa 30,000) may or may not have provided, Chicago was first and foremost breaking the Fugitive Slave laws of Illinois.
And that means any slave-hunter in Illinois need only take his catch to the next town to have the law enforced.

But the most important point is: there is no possible way that a few hundred or thousand fugitive slaves in Chicago, nearly all from the Border States and Upper South, could have any material injury on the Deep South slave-holders.

Remember, in 1860 there were about 4 million slaves.
All the fugitive slave numbers we've seen suggest that on average maybe one in a thousand successfully escaped per year, that nearly all of these must have come from Border States and the Upper South, so that the number of successful escaping Deep South slaves could only have been in the range of one in ten thousand.

Point is: Deep South slave-holders suffered no material injury from states with Personal Liberty Laws and therefore they had no legal standing to complain about it, FRiend. ;-)

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway: "Is it your premise that concern over future events is not a legitimate reason to take preventative action?
In other words, do you believe that a person or group of people must actually be damaged before they seek remedy?
If so, then you must be livid about the billions of dollars spent on our military."

Ha! Nice try, FRiend.

If you have been following these postings, then you know one core of my argument is that the Deep South slave-holders' secession was unconstitutional because it did not meet the criteria established by our Founders' Original Intent.

According to our Founders, secession could only be with "mutual consent," or from "oppression", "usurpation" or "abuse", etc., having that same effect.

My case here is that nothing, nothing which happened in 1860 or before met those criteria, and therefore the Deep South slave-holders' secession was unconstitutional.

As for National Defense, that is a Constitutionally enumerated power of our Federal Government, so, yes we might question whether our military should better consume say 2% or 3% of GDP, instead of today's 4% -- but that is strictly a discussion of military and political necessity, not Constitutionality.

[cowboyway]

Try to answer the question that I asked directly and leave out the red herrings:

Is it your premise that concern over future events is not a legitimate reason to take preventative action?

In other words, do you believe that a person or group of people must actually be damaged before they seek remedy?

[rockrr]

Is it your premise that concern over future events is not a legitimate reason to take preventative action?

No. But then "preventative action" is not an accurate description of what the rebellious state leaders did.

In other words, do you believe that a person or group of people must actually be damaged before they seek remedy?

Not analogous to your first question ("in other words") but yes, it is a general legal principle that to pray for relief you must first prove damages.

[mac_truck]

Since when is a discussion about the original intent of our founders ever considered a red herring?

Doofas.

[cowboyway]

But then "preventative action" is not an accurate description of what the rebellious state leaders did.

Sure it is, but that's not the immediate point of my question. What I'm trying to establish with you guys is your threshold. We all know that you yanks vehemently believe that the South was wrong. Fine. That's your opinion. So given that, how much oppression are you willing to suffer before you act?

yes, it is a general legal principle that to pray for relief you must first prove damages.

So, and using some of brojoe's words, do you believe that the Jews should have waited for Hitler to actually start exterminating them before they acted on their fears that Hitler might exterminate them sometime in the future?

[cowboyway]

The Constitution, by design, did not specifically prohibit secession. Therefore, by virtue of both the 9th and 10th Amendments, the states reserved the right to withdraw from the federal union for any reason deemed appropriate by such state. That was the Founders original intent.

Like me, do you believe that the federal government has stepped outside the explicit authority written in the Constitution and violated the original intent of our Founding Fathers?

(You can get a basic understanding of the principles of our Republic by reading of The Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments.)

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway from #446: "do you believe that a person or group of people must actually be damaged before they seek remedy?"

cowboyway from #449: "Is it your premise that concern over future events is not a legitimate reason to take preventative action?
In other words, do you believe that a person or group of people must actually be damaged before they seek remedy?"

Now you've restated the question three different ways, and it's still silly, but I gave you a serious answer anyway.

In a legalistic sense, a person who is not injured in some material way has no standing to sue in court for redress of possible future injuries.

But your words like "remedy" and "preventative action" are so general they could be interpreted to mean just about anything -- either legal or not.

Therefore the obvious general answer is: yes, anyone can take legal "preventative actions" to seek "remedies" to whatever "damages" they have received or fear they may receive in the future.
So your question is silly.

The more serious specific questions include: did the Deep South slave-holders take Constitutional and lawful "preventative actions" in

1. first declaring themselves seceded, then
2. provoking war by seizing dozens of Federal forts & other properties, then
3. starting war by firing on Federal forces in Fort Sumter, then
4. officially declaring war, and then
5. waging war in every Union state and territory adjacent to the Confederacy, plus several "second tier" states beyond those adjacent?

The obvious answer is: no.

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway: "The Constitution, by design, did not specifically prohibit secession.
Therefore, by virtue of both the 9th and 10th Amendments, the states reserved the right to withdraw from the federal union for any reason deemed appropriate by such state.
That was the Founders original intent."

And y'all endlessly complain about me repeating talking points over and over -- what do you call that? ;-)

The Founders original intent was spelled out explicitly by James Madison and implicitly in the signing statements of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island.

Madison said that, like the previous "perpetual" Articles of Confederation the new Constitution was "forever."
The compact could only be dissolved, he said, by "consent of the other parties" or by "usurpations and abuses having that same effect."

The Virginia signing statement was similar, saying that "injury or oppression" were grounds for resuming Federal powers.

And Madison specifically said the compact could not be dissolved "at pleasure."
So far as I've ever seen, that was our Founders' original intent.

It makes the issue: did the Deep South slave-holders' secessions in late 1860 and early 1861 meet these criteria?

I say they did not, because there is no evidence of either "mutual consent" to secession or material "usurpations," "abuses" or "oppressions," etc. by the Federal Government.
Therefore the Deep South slave-holders seceded "at pleasure" which was not according to our Founders original intent.

As for your brief exegesis of the 9th & 10th ammemdments, that explanation, while repeated endlessly on these threads, was never given by any Founder who voted for ratification of the Constitution -- at least so far as I know.

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway: "We all know that you yanks vehemently believe that the South was wrong.
Fine. That's your opinion.
So given that, how much oppression are you willing to suffer before you act?"

When the engine of your new vehicle first begins to sputter, do you instantly tear it out and put a new one in?

No, of course not.
You start with the simplest and least expensive fixes first -- and most often, that's all it takes.
You don't go on to replacing the engine until you're well satisfied nothing else will do the job.

By any reasonable standard, the Deep South slave-holders in late 1860 and early 1861 seceded "at pleasure."
Indeed, after the disastrous 1860 elections -- a disaster engineered by their own "fire eaters" -- what the slave-holders declared was: immediate, unilateral, unapproved, unconditional and unconstitutional secession.

And they not only rushed to declare themselves seceded, but then immediately began provoking war by forcibly seizing dozens of Federal forts, armories, ships, customs houses, a mint, etc..
Having provoked war, they then started war by firing on Federal forces, most memorably at Fort Sumter.
Having started war they then officially declared war on the United States.
Having officially declared war, they then waged war in every Union state and territory adjacent to the Confederacy, plus several others in the "2nd tier" beyond those.

cowboyway: "So, and using some of brojoe's words, do you believe that the Jews should have waited for Hitler to actually start exterminating them before they acted on their fears that Hitler might exterminate them sometime in the future?"

The Jews of Germany and Austria did act, lawfully -- in most cases long before war began they escaped their home countries.
Sadly many did not escape far enough, and when Nazi armies rolled over Europe, they were re-captured and then treated worse than Jews who had long been citizens of those countries.

But once again, the question is not just "taking some action", but whether those actions were reasonable, lawful and Constitutional -- or even effective -- under the circumstances?

In the case of the Deep South slave-holders' secession in late 1860 and early 1861, the answer is: no.

[cowboyway]

Therefore the obvious general answer is: yes, anyone can take legal "preventative actions" to seek "remedies" to whatever "damages" they have received or fear they may receive in the future. So your question is silly.

The damage was the done by the federal government not upholding the Constitution. The remedy was secession.

You've stated repeatedly that the South seceded because of fears of what might happen in the future.

It would appear that you don't think that concerns over future events are a credible reason to take action. (If you remember from a previous post I joked that if you really believed that then you should be livid about the billions spent on the military but, you obviously didn't get the sarcasm and launched into a lecture on enumerated powers. Do you get the sarcasm now?) If you agree that the primary reason for our military is fears about what might happen in the future, then this part of your position about the South is washed out.

You've also stated that the Deep South had no reason to secede because very few slaves from the Deep South escaped. Based on this flimsy argument, people in Minnesota and Wisconsin shouldn't be concerned about border jumpers crossing into Arizona and Texas, or the Constitution not being upheld, since it hardly affects them. Right?

Answers to 1-5:
1) True
2) False
3) False
4) True
5) True, but only after being invaded

[cowboyway]

And y'all endlessly complain about me repeating talking points over and over -- what do you call that? ;-)

Shooting back. Do you really believe that we're going to allow you to post all your revisionism unchallenged?!?

Read the following carefully: The Constitution, by design, did not specifically prohibit secession. Therefore, by virtue of both the 9th and 10th Amendments, the states reserved the right to withdraw from the federal union for any reason deemed appropriate by such state. That was the Founders original intent.

[cowboyway]

When the engine of your new vehicle first begins to sputter, do you instantly tear it out and put a new one in?

You dodged the question: How much oppression are you willing to suffer before you act?

The Jews of Germany and Austria did act, lawfully -- in most cases long before war began they escaped their home countries.

So you agree that fears about what might happen in the future is a legitimate reason to take action?

In the case of the Deep South slave-holders' secession

I'm not going to let your revisionism go unchallenged, pal.

The entire South seceded: slave-holders, non-slave-holders, freedmen, po white trash, merchants, farmers, tradesmen, et al.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The entire South seceded: slave-holders, non-slave-holders, freedmen, po white trash, merchants, farmers, tradesmen, et al.

Whether they wanted to or not.