Lee, Virginia, and the Union

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org ^ | March 27, 2019 | Fred H. Cox

[NKP_Vet]

The Hall of Fame recently dedicated at New York Uni­versity was conceived from the Ruhmes Halle in Bavaria. This structure on University Heights, on the Harlem river, in the borough of the Bronx, New York City, has, or is in­tended to have, a panel of bronze with other mementos for each of one hundred and fifty native-born Americans who have been deceased at least ten years, and who are of great character and fame in authorship, education, science, art, soldiery, statesmanship, philanthropy, or in any worthy un­dertaking. Fifty names were to have been chosen at once; but, on account of a slight change of plans, only twenty-nine have been chosen, and twenty-one more will be in 1902. The remaining one hundred names are to be chosen during the century, five at the end of each five years. The present judges of names to be honored are one hundred representa­tive American scholars in different callings. They are most­ly Northern men, although at least one judge represents each State.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Since the right to independence is the very foundation of our own nation, he was in the wrong.

Question: Is the right of independence only at the state level, or can my county announce that it's now a separate country? Asking for a friend.

[central_va]

Counties can form a state i.e. West Virginia.

[BroJoeK]

DrewsMum: "Try again.
While those things are true mostly, you are missing a few key points."

Maybe, or rather I was just trying to keep it simple.

DrewsMum: "However most of the growth until that point can be attributed to natural birth rate growth.
They weren’t importing a lot of blacks.... not at all."

So let's look at actual numbers & percents of Illinois freed-blacks (compared to whites):

1. 1820 to 1830 from 457 to 1,637 = 258% (whites: 185%)
2. 1830 to 1840 from 1,637 to 3,598 = 120% (whites: 203%)
3. 1840 to 1850 from 3,598 to 5,436 = 51% (whites 79%)
4. 1850 to 1860 from 5,436 to 7,628 = 40% (whites 101%)

For comparisons, freed-black populations nation-wide grew:

1. 1820 to 1830 from 230,000 to 313,000 = 36%
2. 1830 to 1840 from 313,000 to 378,000 = 21%
3. 1840 to 1850 from 378,000 to 424,000 = 12%
4. 1850 to 1860 from 424,000 to 476,000 = 12%

So, comparing Illinois to the rest of the country, if all that growth was just "natural birth rate growth" then we must suspect there was something very special in Illinois' water which made them so much more fertile than other states.
If we compare the growth rates of Illinois African-Americans to white populations, they are less, but still higher than other states.

DrewsMum: "The black growth rate from 1840 to 1850 BEFORE the constitution change is significantly higher than 1850 to 1860 AFTER the constitution change.
The growth rate really slowed."

The growth rates of both white & black populations in Illinois did slow percentage-wise, but not that much and still both higher than other regions of the country.
From 1840 to 1850 freed-blacks increased 51% then another 40% from 1850 to 1860.

The white increase went from 78% to 101%, but nobody claims that was all just "natural birth rate growth".

DrewsMum: "See, just quoting stats is never the whole picture.
You can’t form an accurate historical narrative with just that one element.
So much more goes into it."

The numbers show us that Illinois' freed-black population was growing slower than its white population, but both faster than other states at the time, and nobody claims the white population growth was all just "natural birth rate growth".

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "And here you are trying to deliberately distort what I said.
This is why I generally do not bother with you.
You cannot be objective on anything.
You will only see things in a manner that fits with what you wish to believe."

Total nonsense.
If you disagree with my characterization of your very lengthy post, then correct it.

Yes or no, should Union troops have returned fugitive slaves to their Confederate "masters"?

Then take a sentence or two to explain your reason why.
I'm waiting.

[DiogenesLamp]

No it didn't. It came from consumers who purchased the goods, who were overwhelmingly in the north.

Northern exports were only 15-25% of the total. From whence did these northern consumers get their European currency with which to purchase these goods?

All pathways lead back to Southern exports. *THAT* is where the European money came from.

In fact, the growers sold their cotton to middlemen at a spot price. Those middlemen shipped the cotton to Europe, perhaps with an order in place at a price, or to be sold at a spot price on arrival.

Which is why cutting out the middle men would have been so devastating to the New York centric shipping industry as well as to it's banking, warehousing, insurance, and so forth.

Yes, New York pretty much controlled the cotton market in 1860, and *THAT* is why the money always came back through New York. But let us have no confusion as to where the money came from. It came from Southern exports.

[DiogenesLamp]

Question: Is the right of independence only at the state level, or can my county announce that it's now a separate country? Asking for a friend.

As our own framework for asserting Independence (Declaration of Independence) is identified as being at the state level, I have no need to worry about sub divisions of a state because none of that is relevant to the topic of whether states have this right.

According to the Declaration of Independence and our founders, states do have this right.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I keep pointing it out in an effort to break through your cognitive dissonance."

My alleged "cognitive dissonance" is strictly your fantasy projection of your own feelings.
If you had an ounce of honest thinking, your head would be exploding with "cognitive dissonance".

DiogenesLamp: "The existing liberal power structure of New York and Washington DC acquired control of the nation in the runup to the civil war, and this exact same power structure (North Eastern elites) are still running the nation today. "

That "runup to the civil war" began in 1801 when Democrats took power in Washington, DC, and formed political-economic alliances with Northeastern immigrant bosses, i.e., Tammany Hall in NYC.
Together they were the "power structure" which ruled until secession in 1861.
Those people were all Democrats, not Federalists, nor National-Republicans, nor Whigs nor Republicans.
The DC-Northeast alliance was always Democrats, and that's the key point you keep ignoring, because of the cognitive dissonance it would cause you.

DiogenesLamp: "Conservatives are fighting them, but they control the News, the Entertainment, and the publishing businesses."

Right, "they" = Democrats, just as in 1860.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes or no, should Union troops have returned fugitive slaves to their Confederate "masters"?

Already covered this perfectly. If the Confederacy is a foreign power, then no. If the Confederacy is a "rebellion", then all property should have been held till disposal of it was adjudicated. Due process should have been required.

Once again, you people are trying to have it both ways. For the purpose of disposing of captured property, and for imposing anti-constitutional measures, you want the Confederacy to be regarded as a foreign country without Constitutional rights. For the purpose of justifying the power to subjugate it, you want it to be regarded as US territory in rebellion.

You want to have your cake and eat it too.

[DiogenesLamp]

Counties can form a state i.e. West Virginia.

This is another example of them absolutely ignoring constitutional law in the Union. The constitution forbids the creation of a state from the territory of another state without the consent of that state's legislature.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The operative words here are "should not."
If you read it carefully, it asserts the right as inviolable.
So "should not" is a suggestion, not a command or requirement.
The right to independence also allows for frivolous reasons.
There is no requirement to have good reasons for wanting to leave."

If you read it carefully, it says no such thing.
That is strictly DiogenesLamp's unique opinion.
No US Founder said it, ever.
Instead, Founders recognized "necessity" as in 1776 brought on by "a long train of abuses and usurpations".
They also recognized Mutual Consent as in 1788, "in order to form a more perfect Union".

No Founder ever proposed or supported an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
All understood that as treason, rebellion & war.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Declaration of Independence articulates an absolute right to independence, and puts no constraints or conditions on the exercise of that right.

It clearly means "at pleasure", since you like to use that word so much.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Northern exports were only 15-25% of the total.
From whence did these northern consumers get their European currency with which to purchase these goods? "

A complete lie, unless by "Northern" you mean only New England and by "Southern" you mean the rest of the country.
The Confederate Savannah Republican, March 1, 1861, freely admitted:

"...except sugar, which mounts up to a respectable figure, the Confederate States export nothing but cotton, worth speaking of.
The little rice, tobacco, naval stores and lumber we export amount to a very small sum."

DiogenesLamp: "Yes, New York pretty much controlled the cotton market in 1860, and *THAT* is why the money always came back through New York.
But let us have no confusion as to where the money came from.
It came from Southern exports."

Cotton was important, in 1860 it produced 50% of US export earnings.
No other alleged "Southern export" was "worth speaking of."
When cotton was eliminated in 1861 it reduced total US exports by 35%, but it did not destroy the US economy, contrary to some expectations.

As for "New York control," at least half of US cotton exported directly from New Orleans and another 25% from Southern ports, but imports didn't return through those same ports because there weren't customers there to buy imports.

DiogenesLamp blames all that on the alleged NY-DC "power structure", but until secession in 1861, those people were 100% Democrats.

[DiogenesLamp]

Skip.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Northern exports were only 15-25% of the total. From whence did these northern consumers get their European currency with which to purchase these goods?

Northern consumers paid with US dollars, which would be exchanged by the importers for foreign money at a variable exchange rate, just as it is today. Or did you buy your cell phone with Chinese currency?

Which is why cutting out the middle men would have been so devastating to the New York centric shipping industry as well as to it's banking, warehousing, insurance, and so forth.

Southern planters were never going to become the shippers of their cotton or the importers of European goods to sell to consumers who overwhelmingly lived in the north. Perhaps different middlemen would have arisen, but I suspect the effect would have been the same.

But let us have no confusion as to where the money came from. It came from Southern exports.

No it didn't. In then end it came from the northern consumers who bought those goods, using US currency.

If all you say was true, why didn't southern planters simply ship their goods overseas, sell it for gold at the spot price there, and bring back the gold, since there was no import duty on gold.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Already covered this perfectly.
If the Confederacy is a foreign power, then no."

Confederates insisted then, and Lost Causers tell us today they were a "foreign power", especially regarding treason.
Tell us again why we should not believe them on this?

DiogenesLamp: "If the Confederacy is a "rebellion", then all property should have been held till disposal of it was adjudicated.
Due process should have been required."

Due process was required and it was spelled out by Congress in various acts, including the Confiscation Act of 1861 which authorized court proceedings to free "Contraband".
The 1862 Act Prohibiting the Return of Slaves ordered the US military not to return slaves to their Confederate "masters".

DiogenesLamp: "For the purpose of justifying the power to subjugate it, you want it to be regarded as US territory in rebellion.
You want to have your cake and eat it too."

But Western Allies did not require a "rebellion" in the Second World War to subjugate defeated Axis powers.
So your claim here is simply false, and it is, indeed you Lost Causers who wish it both ways -- you want the Confederacy to be a "foreign country" for purposes of adjudicating treason, but otherwise just rebels who get to keep their slaveholding rights.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

you Lost Causers who wish it both ways -- you want the Confederacy to be a "foreign country" for purposes of adjudicating treason, but otherwise just rebels who get to keep their slaveholding rights.

I like to call that "Having your cake and seceding from it, too."

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The constitution forbids the creation of a state from the territory of another state without the consent of that state's legislature."

The US Congress, the President and Virginia's legislature did consent in 1863, then Virginia attempted in 1865 to withdraw approval, appealing to the US Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of West Virginia.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nope. Phoney baloney made up "legislature" did this. The actual legislature of Virginia did not agree to this, and it existed before the US Constitution, so nobody with any honesty would go along with this made up bullsh*t.

Again, the Confederacy was a "foreign country" when it suited Washington DC to treat it as one, and it was "rebelled territory" when they wanted to justify attacking it.

[OIFVeteran]

Your wrong. The Declaration clearly states that governments should not be changed for light or transient reasons. You don't want to acknowledge that because it blows a hole in your theory. On top of that even James Madison, the father of the constitution, said secession was not allowed under the constitution. That is was compact between all the states and could only be broken with all the states agreements. Don't believe me? Here's the letter were he states this principle. TO N. P. TRIST. … MAD. MSS. Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832. Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved. I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the word respective, prefixed to the “rights” &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c, should unite in contending for the security of them to each. It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol. 2,1 with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject. I know nothing of what is passing at Richmond, more than what is seen in the newspapers. You were right in your foresight of the effect of the passages in the late Proclamation. They have proved a leaven for much fermentation there, and created an alarm against the danger of consolidation, balancing that of disunion. I wish with you the Legislature may not seriously injure itself by assuming the high character of mediator. They will certainly do so if they forget that their real influence will be in the inverse ratio of a boastful interposition of it. If you can fix, and will name the day of your arrival at Orange Court House, we will have a horse there for you; and if you have more baggage than can be otherwise brought than on wheels, we will send such a vehicle for it. Such is the state of the roads produced by the wagons hurrying flour to market, that it may be impossible to send our carriage which would answer both purposes.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamo: "The Declaration of Independence articulates an absolute right to independence, and puts no constraints or conditions on the exercise of that right.
It clearly means "at pleasure", since you like to use that word so much."

Not at all.
The Declaration "articulates" that "a long train of abuses and usurpations" becomes "destructive" and makes it necessary to abolish & create new government.

The Declaration expresses no unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
Nor did any Founder at any time, ever.

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, explained it directly, here.