Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Floridians mark anniversary of joining the Confederacy
The Florida Times-Union ^ | January 10, 2011 - 12:00am | Kate Howard

Posted on 01/10/2011 8:57:06 AM PST by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at jacksonville.com ...


TOPICS: Education; History; Military/Veterans; Society
KEYWORDS: anniversary; confederacy; damnyankee; dixie; florida; gaterbait; illegalsecesssion; northwasright; scv; slavery; southern; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-489 next last
It was also about state rights, unfair tariffs and overall economic issues.
1 posted on 01/10/2011 8:57:13 AM PST by cowboyway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Idabilly; southernsunshine; mstar; DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis; central_va; TexConfederate1861; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 01/10/2011 9:00:03 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
I'm sure all the migrants (I assume the majority of the state at this point) living in ‘The Villages’ and elsewhere in Florida know or care....

I agree with your states rights take...but I bet the majority are not sons and daughters of the Confederacy...nor care.

3 posted on 01/10/2011 9:03:13 AM PST by Vaquero (BHO....'The Pretenda from Kenya')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
At that point in time it was all about tariffs and state rights. Slavery never entered the War of Northern Aggression until Lincoln started to run out of bodies and needed to bring in Black people to fight for the north. Keep in mind northern state and some of their generals even had slaves.
4 posted on 01/10/2011 9:07:27 AM PST by Plumberman27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Does anybody truly believe that 230 years ago,states and commonwealths who,since they were founded as colonies had always ran their OWN affairs with local love and fidelity, would enter into a contract with no way out if the government of that union was suddenly seized by a tyrannical regime?
5 posted on 01/10/2011 9:08:40 AM PST by Happy Rain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
FLA was the "breadbasket of the confederacy" - salt and beef supply line.

Tallahassee, FLA and Austin, TX were the only southern capital cities not captured.

6 posted on 01/10/2011 9:11:10 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
I agree with your states rights take...but I bet the majority are not sons and daughters of the Confederacy...nor care.

All you need is a majority...

7 posted on 01/10/2011 9:19:06 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain
Does anybody truly believe that 230 years ago,states and commonwealths who,since they were founded as colonies had always ran their OWN affairs with local love and fidelity, would enter into a contract with no way out if the government of that union was suddenly seized by a tyrannical regime?

A good question for the FR Lincoln Coven. They'll be here soon enough.

8 posted on 01/10/2011 9:21:27 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Florida's role in the Civil War: "Supplier of the Confederacy"
9 posted on 01/10/2011 9:27:44 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Another from Natchez,Mississippi,Wasn't able to attend as I'm in Alabama for a spell... http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/news/2011/jan/10/crowd-braves-cold-honors-anniversary-state-seccesi/
10 posted on 01/10/2011 9:38:15 AM PST by piroque (Southern born and Raised,Love "G R I T S")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plumberman27

A fistful of baloney. Have a look at the laws and acts leading up to the American Civil War and quit spreading that nonsense.

APf


11 posted on 01/10/2011 9:39:16 AM PST by APFel (Regnum Nostrum Crescit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: APFel
A fistful of baloney. Have a look at the laws and acts leading up to the American Civil War and quit spreading that nonsense.

Plumberman is correct, it is you who is full of baloney.

12 posted on 01/10/2011 10:08:12 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Plumberman27
At that point in time it was all about tariffs and state rights. Slavery never entered the War of Northern Aggression until Lincoln started to run out of bodies and needed to bring in Black people to fight for the north.

I took a look at the official declarations of secession composed by several state governments and they sure seem to think slavery entered into it:

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

Declaration of Causes of Secession(Georgia, Mississippi, Texas)

Some excerpts:

South Carolina: "Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

Georgia: "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."

Texas: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
13 posted on 01/10/2011 10:15:57 AM PST by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Plumberman27
Keep in mind northern state and some of their generals even had slaves.

More like some slave states didn't feel the need to secede and some generals didn't let their loyalty to their state trump their oath as a United States officer.

14 posted on 01/10/2011 10:19:51 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
When Florida seceded in 1861, it had been in the Union less than 16 years--about the same length of time as between the O. J. Simpson trial and now.

The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The Constitution nowhere says that states have no right to secede.

15 posted on 01/10/2011 11:20:02 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

A ping for ya, junior. Keep striving to learn.

APf


16 posted on 01/10/2011 11:53:42 AM PST by APFel (Regnum Nostrum Crescit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
Florida Declaration

Last and not least it has been proclaimed that the election of a President is an authoritative approval of all the principles avowed by the person elected and by the party convention which nominated him. Although that election is made by little more than one third of the votes given. But however large the majority may have been to recognize such a principle is to announce a revolution in the government and to substitute an aggregate popular majority for the written constitution without which no single state would have voted its adoption not forming in truth a federal union but a consolidated despotism that worst of despotisms that of an unrestricted sectional and hostile majority, we do not intend to be misunderstood, we do not controvert the right of a majority to govern within the grant of powers in the Constitution.

17 posted on 01/10/2011 11:54:30 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
It was also about state rights, unfair tariffs and overall economic issues.

And what was it about to the Union? Simply put, power and money.

18 posted on 01/10/2011 12:29:29 PM PST by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: southernsunshine
Simply put, power and money.

Absolutely. The South was carrying the north and the north decided to bite the hand that was feeding them.

Additional territory is generally only acquired by conquest or purchase. In either case the slaveholding States contribute at least this equal proportion of men or money – we think much more than an equal proportion. The revenues of the General Government are almost entirely derived from duties on importations. It is time that the northern consumer pays his proportion of these duties, but the North as a section receiving back in the increased prices of the rival articles which it manufactures nearly or quite as much as the imposts which it pays thus in effect paying nothing or very little for the support of the government. As to the sacrifice of lives which recent acquisitions have caused how small is the proportion of Northern blood shed or laurels won in the Mexican war.

19 posted on 01/10/2011 12:47:38 PM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: central_va
It is easy to criticize in hindsight—affecting moral superiority over those who lived in long ago and much different times.A**holes focus on single issues that validate their personal hate-like painting George Washington as ONLY some white devil slave master and nothing else—well GW did own slaves yet he was still the chief founder of the most just and free country the earth has ever seen.
The South perceived Lincoln as a threat to their way of life and in essence he was because he was elected by those states where emancipation of the slaves would not result in economic collapse.
To the South, slavery was the ultimate necessary evil and even many Southerners were aware the institution was intrinsically wicked and damned to end someday.
When Great Britain outlawed slavery in her colonies she purchased the freedom of those slaves in areas where the economic impact of emancipation could result in war.
It worked and it was a shame that the United States couldn't come up with such a peaceful alternative to invading and laying waste to the South with atrocities,war crimes and typical Yankee bad manners.

Funny thing though—personally I AM glad Lincoln was a cruel determined savage in his efforts to preserve the Union otherwise the South would have won.
My CSA Army veteran great grandads were (respectively) South Carolinian and Tennessean first—Their great grandson is an American first.
So even though I cheer at Fredericksburg and curse at Gettysburg, I give a sigh of relief at Appomattox.

20 posted on 01/10/2011 12:52:55 PM PST by Happy Rain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain
My CSA Army veteran great grandads were (respectively) South Carolinian and Tennessean first—Their great grandson is an American first.

You could learn a lot from your great grandads. States rights died at Appomattox, and with it the republic. Now we live in a cartoon constitutional dictatorship, one the original founders would make cringe and hang their heads in shame.

PS: The south would not collapse without slavery. After the war the North tried to destroy the South, but most somehow barely survived reconstruction despite the freedman bureau's best efforts..

21 posted on 01/10/2011 1:00:50 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Whether the South would have collapsed without slavery is not the issue-the South BELIEVED it would at the time and thus acted in their best interest at the time.

Succession was possibly the greatest and most unfortunate example of, “it seemed like a good idea at the time” in American history.

22 posted on 01/10/2011 1:14:23 PM PST by Happy Rain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: central_va; cowboyway; mstar; Idabilly
After the war the North tried to destroy the South, but most somehow barely survived reconstruction despite the freedman bureau's best efforts..

Speaking of Reconstruction, here's a good one:

Historians who are well aware of the corruption that followed the war . . . seem to imply that it mysteriously appeared after Lincoln's death, and somehow miss the obvious conclusion that it was implicit in the goals of the Lincoln war party. This is to abandon fact and reason for the mysticism of Union and emancipation, a pseudo-religious appeal inappropriate to the discourse of free men.

"War, Reconstruction, and the End of the Old Republic by Clyde N. Wilson in

The Costs of War: America's Pyrrhic Victories ed. John V. Denison, 2nd ed. p.160

23 posted on 01/10/2011 1:46:26 PM PST by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain
Happy Rain - Thank you, and your family, for your service.

Whether the South would have collapsed without slavery is not the issue-the South BELIEVED it would at the time and thus acted in their best interest at the time.

I respectfully disagree. Arkansas seceded due to Lincoln's demand for troops. It had nothing to with a belief that the South would collapse in the absence of slavery. Arkansas rejected the notion that the Federal government had the authority to use force to coerce the seceded states back into the Union.

24 posted on 01/10/2011 1:51:29 PM PST by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain
Funny thing though—personally I AM glad Lincoln was a cruel determined savage in his efforts to preserve the Union otherwise the South would have won. My CSA Army veteran great grandads were (respectively) South Carolinian and Tennessean first—Their great grandson is an American first. So even though I cheer at Fredericksburg and curse at Gettysburg, I give a sigh of relief at Appomattox.

That's right poetic.

The only difference is that I, like many others, believe that the 10th Amendment was de facto repealed at Appomattox. In the last couple of years a few states, mostly Southern, have passed resolutions declaring state sovereignty in an attempt to dampen the over reaching of the federal government. It is a futile, and mostly symbolic, gesture, in my opinion.

25 posted on 01/10/2011 2:40:23 PM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain
Funny thing though—personally I AM glad Lincoln was a cruel determined savage in his efforts to preserve the Union otherwise the South would have won. My CSA Army veteran great grandads were (respectively) South Carolinian and Tennessean first—Their great grandson is an American first. So even though I cheer at Fredericksburg and curse at Gettysburg, I give a sigh of relief at Appomattox.

That's right poetic.

The only difference is that I, like many others, believe that the 10th Amendment was de facto repealed at Appomattox. In the last couple of years a few states, mostly Southern, have passed resolutions declaring state sovereignty in an attempt to dampen the over reaching of the federal government. It is a futile, and mostly symbolic, gesture, in my opinion.

26 posted on 01/10/2011 2:48:18 PM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain; Bubba Ho-Tep
It is easy to criticize in hindsight—affecting moral superiority over those who lived in long ago and much different times.A**holes focus on single issues that validate their personal hate ...

Right -- I am so sick of the "A**holes" who affect superiority over Lincoln, Grant and other people who lived long ago, and go on and on about "states rights", ignoring the real issues of the time to validate their personal hatred of Northerners.

27 posted on 01/10/2011 3:37:04 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Plumberman27
Keep in mind northern state and some of their generals even had slaves.

Sen. Stephen Douglas ("the Little Giant") owned slaves. His second wife inherited a plantation in Mississippi. Douglas of course acquired proprietorship when he married her in about 1855 (her property became his, under 19th century marriage laws), but he kept it at arm's length, hiring a manager and only visiting the plantation for some emergency or other that demanded his presence. But he enjoyed the income, which helped him in his political endeavors. I think he still owned it when he died in 1861, a couple of months after the war started.

28 posted on 01/10/2011 4:42:15 PM PST by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
Some excerpts:

Excerpting is a good way to lie -- you can't trust excerpts.

For example, if you read the entire Texas Declaration, you'll see there were three or four major issues leading Texans to secede, of which the preservation of slavery was only one.

Mind you, the expansion of slavery was a non-issue in Texas: New Mexico and Arizona were below the 36o 30' Missouri Compromise line of 1820, and so slavery was presumably legal to establish there under the Compromises of both 1820 and 1850. And so the extension of slavery to those Territories was a non-issue for Texans, but the preservation of slavery as the basis of their economy was a huge concern (the slaves alone, in 1860, were worth something like $160,000,000 in gold, or more than ALL the improved real estate in the State), because an uncompensated emancipation -- which was what eventually happened -- would ruin the State. Which it did.

Lincoln's platform was not an issue. Lincoln's elections was, because of what it meant to the South going forward. And all of that -- the implications of the installation of a monolithic anti-Southern political machine as the U.S. Government for as far as the eye could see -- WAS the cause of secession, and the Northern response to secession was the cause of the Civil War.

29 posted on 01/10/2011 5:01:18 PM PST by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: x
I am so sick of the "A**holes" who affect superiority over Lincoln, Grant and other people ... ignoring the real issues of the time ....

So you don't like historical revisionists? The revolution in constitutional law embraced by Webster and Lincoln must have genuinely upset you, then. And the massive revision of U.S. history after the Civil War. And Bill Clinton's revision (with Marxist help) of U.S. history 15 years ago, to help him do 'Rat politics at the expense of the South.

How about Pearl Harbor revisionism, under whose Klieg lights FDR suddenly doesn't look so hot -- and in fact looks like a downright skulking scoundrel and rotter? I'll bet Doris Kearns Goodrat doesn't like Pearl Harbor revisionists at all. She has such happy memories of growing up in the feelgood Golden Age of Uncle Joe -- er, Franklin.

30 posted on 01/10/2011 5:11:24 PM PST by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Excerpting is a good way to lie -- you can't trust excerpts.

Nonsense - and don't accuse me of lying. I provided links to the full text of the declarations of secession (after reading them in full), and excerpted sections which indicate clearly that slavery was very much an issue for several of the states which seceded, contrary to the claim of the poster I replied to.


31 posted on 01/10/2011 5:20:20 PM PST by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: x
Photobucket
32 posted on 01/10/2011 5:43:17 PM PST by mojitojoe (In itÂ’s 1400 years of existence, Islam has 2 main accomplishments, psychotic violence and goat curr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain
To the South, slavery was the ultimate necessary evil and even many Southerners were aware the institution was intrinsically wicked and damned to end someday.

This is, unfortunately, an anachronistic argument.

In 1787 it was absolutely correct, one reason the Founders were always careful to avoid giving the institution any explicit recognition in the Constitution, instead always using euphemisms. Washington (highly honorably), Jefferson (much less honorably), Madison and pretty much all the prominent southern Founders explicitly denounced the institution as evil.

Unfortunately, by 1860 this attitude had been stood on its head, and slavery was believed throughout the South not to be "intrinsically wicked" and "damned to end," but rather to be a positive good the blessing of which they fully intended to spread throughout Latin America if they couldn't force it on the northern states.

If you have countervailing evidence, I'd love to see it, but in all the Declarations of Secession I've read, I don't recall a single statement about slavery being evil and to be brought to and end. On the contrary, they normally list the protection of the institution as the primary or only reason for their secession.

In fact, I doubt there is much discussion of slavery as an evil by prominent southerners during the whole decade of the '50s.

Lincoln, quite accurately, declared his attitude towards slavery to be that of the Founders, and that of the slaveocracy to be the perversion of their ideals. The secessionists quite openly proclaimed our founding ideal, "all men are created equal," to be false.

33 posted on 01/10/2011 6:26:26 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

Don’t bring facts and historical quotations to a Wannabe thread....they can’t handle it when their worship of the CSA is shown to be a false God....


34 posted on 01/10/2011 6:28:17 PM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Excerpting is a good way to lie -- you can't trust excerpts.

For example, if you read the entire Texas Declaration, you'll see there were three or four major issues leading Texans to secede, of which the preservation of slavery was only one.

But when you read it,the Texans make it overwhelmingly about slavery, and even the issues that they mention that might not be directly related to the peculiar institution, THEY THEMSELVES relate to it.

When the issue of tariffs is mentioned (without using that word), it isn't as with "the agricultural product exporting states" that Texas identifies itself. No, it's

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance
Even when they complain about the lack of military support against the Indians (ironically, by the way, seeming to demand a larger federal presence) what they say is:
They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.
The fact is that the word slave (or slavery, or slave-holding) appears 21 TIMES in the Texas declaration, and in fact is one of the most frequently appearing words in that document
35 posted on 01/10/2011 6:35:35 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
In 1787 it was absolutely correct

I believe that you are right on this point. I have not specifically researched this topic, but I have read many original ante bellum documents, especially wills and probate documents. I have a letter, written by a North Carolina ancestor in 1784 to his cousins in Ireland. He lamented the survival of slavery into the New Republic and predicted its end in due course. He also predicted that if the country could not craft a solution, a civil war would ensue. He was a slave holder and Revolutionary War officer. I have read many other contemporary accounts by the political and social elites debating how to end the institution.

But, by the 1850's, this talk had disappeared. I think in part this was just a hardened political stance in response to external attacks by the abolitionist movements in the North and in England. They took the stance that abolition was easy in England and the North where Industrialization provided the only economic engine required. The South, they contended, could not survive economically without slaves. It was a rationalization in my opinion, but it was one that was wildly held.

The other factor was the cotton gin. Before its invention, slave based plantation agriculture was a low country activity. In the Piedmont and Western states, the Scots Irish and German settlers held few slaves and operated small subsistence family farms. The cotton gin changed this. The upland farmers, with slave labor, could grow abundant crops of cotton and many of these poor Southerners became very wealthy men. Prosperity changes attitudes, and many who held moral objections to slavery adjusted their stance. Of course, when the vote to secede came, many of those upland dwellers voted against it, but they had become the minority.

BTW, all of my ancestors were Southerners, including some well known slave holders like Thomas Jefferson. With the exception of a very small group who left Tennessee and went to Illinois in protest of slavery, all of the rest supported slavery either explicitly, or implicitly through their service to the Confederate cause.

36 posted on 01/10/2011 7:12:47 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

The southern belief that they were utterly dependent economically on slavery was absolutely correct.

For more than 50 years most southern capital had been poured into investments in slaves, to the point where the value of the slaves (human capital in the literal sense) was considerably greater than the value of all the land and buildings in the South. Emancipation would have, and indeed did, make all that wealth just disappear, the primary reason for southern poverty after the war, not carpetbagger oppression.

Think of the turmoil here when we have had a disappearance of perhaps 20% to 25% of real estate values. Then extrapolate that to 100%. No wonder they were scared to death.

I haven’t seen much discussion of the topic, but I suspect slavery in 1860 was nearing the end of a classic bubble. There is no way the amount of money a slave could bring in could justify the huge prices being paid for a slave.

People invested in slaves because they expected the price to go up. It was believed that restriction of slavery to its present bounds would bring the price down, bursting the bubble.

In actual fact, of course, the slave price bubble was doomed, anyway. The high price of cotton on which it was based was encouraging cotton growing in other areas like Egypt and India, and thus an expansion of supply, which would have eventually brought down the price. The War just accelerated this process.

Southerners were under the delusion they could keep the bubble expanding indefinitely by building a great slave empire in Latin America and the Caribbean. In actual fact the Royal Navy would never have allowed them to do so. Not to mention the rump of the USA.

The evil of the South’s position came not from recognition of their total dependence on the institution, but rather from their determination to proclaim an evil institution to be a positive good. Along with Lincoln, I have no idea how the evil could be gotten rid of. But I know calling evil good is always wrong.


37 posted on 01/10/2011 7:35:13 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

The end of the war greatly reduced the wealth of the slave holding class. the more slaves that they held, the greater the loss. However, both former slave holders and farmers who had never held any slaves lost more of their wealth with the imposition of excessive property taxes by Recostructionist governments. Land fell out of production and the economy collapsed. Many families never recovered.

I have seen a number of slave sale receipts. The prices recorded in the late 1850’s was unbelievable and could not have been sustained. Its a tragedy that the bubble did not burst or that the South did not come to its collective senses before shots were fired.


38 posted on 01/10/2011 7:46:42 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Plumberman27
Since you mentioned running out of bodies.. Photobucket
39 posted on 01/10/2011 8:05:50 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
"It was also about state rights, unfair tariffs and overall economic issues."

Yea, "states rights" to keep slaves, "unfair tariffs" on the importation of slaves and "overall economic issues" of slavery. Unless you happened to be a "darkie" living below the Mason-Dixon line that lie will fly.

40 posted on 01/10/2011 8:10:45 PM PST by RasterMaster (The only way to open a LIEberal mind is with a brick!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piroque

Historical note: Natchez MS voted against Secession in 1861.


41 posted on 01/10/2011 8:13:21 PM PST by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Expressing abolitionist beliefs in the antebellum South was considered by the ruling class an act of inciting insurrection.The widespread antipathy for slavery was repressed and thus underrepresented by the historical record.
Still,it is impossible to imagine the incredible success of the Underground Railroad without the cooperation of a large section of the white population.
Personally,I can only go by my family history which began at Jamestown Virginia in 1630 and consisted of both slave owning and non slave owning generations to come.
My great granddads fought for their states (their homes) against the Yankee invader alone and for nothing else—they left the slave problem to the rich planters and corrupt politicians.
42 posted on 01/10/2011 8:35:26 PM PST by Happy Rain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain
Still,it is impossible to imagine the incredible success of the Underground Railroad without the cooperation of a large section of the white population.

The Underground Railroad, for all the attention it gets, was hardly incredibly successful. First, only slaves from border or near border states were able to access it. Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri saw the lion's share of successful runaways. In the deeper south, the runaway success rate was nearly zero.

Second, even in those more northerly slave states, the total number of successful runaways per year through the 1840s and 1850s was about 1500, or, of a slave population of 3.2 million (per the 1850 census) less than 0.05% a year. For all the south bitched and moaned about northern personal liberty laws not giving them back their slaves, runaways were an incredibly minor annoyance, economically speaking.

43 posted on 01/10/2011 10:20:38 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
Even when they complain about the lack of military support against the Indians (ironically, by the way, seeming to demand a larger federal presence) what they say is:

They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.
(Emphasis yours.)

I'm not sure you make your point the way you wanted it to be taken. That is, yes, the Texans are arguing that the Northern States' congressional representatives, in denying the military appropriation, made it clear that their reason for doing so, was that Texas was a slave State. It was the Northern politicians who made slavery the issue, when the issue Texas took with their having done that, was that it was a violation of the Constitution, viz., denying Texans the protection of federal troops, which was still extended to other States that were in better political odor with the Northern political faction.

Which is pretty much how the whole issue of slavery came to the fore in the first place. The Abolitionists made it an issue, and the Republican Party took up the cudgels for their own, somewhat different reasons.

There has been some recent scholarship on the subject of the Northern moral crusade against slavery, its content and the method and tenor of its propagation, that tells us a good deal about how the issue came to be such a large one.

Remember, slavery wasn't the issue in 1832 when North and South clashed over the 1828 Tariff. It was Northern politicians who sought to make it a sectional issue, and attached the slavery crusade to it (being a moral crusade, and therefore absolute, its appeal could never be appeased except by the destruction of its object), the better to unite their advantage in numbers, consolidate the North with the agrarian Midwest, and overwhelm their opponents in the Congress and take over the federal government, which at length they did, after the slavery issue neutralized Northern exponents of the National Democracy like Stephen Douglas. Douglas had been a viable future presidential candidate when he helped engineer the 1850 Compromise, but his political career was utterly destroyed by the slavery issue and Kansas-Nebraska. Kansas-Nebraska was his effort to straddle and finesse the slavery issue being pushed by Free Soilers and Northern Whigs. Lincoln not only unhorsed Douglas but wrecked his party with the slavery issue.

That is why slavery was an issue in 1860: because the Republicans and Free Soilers insisted on making it the paramount issue, when thanks to Henry Clay and the 1820 Missouri Compromise, it hadn't been before Texas's (denied) application for statehood in 1836. The territorial gains of Texas annexation and the Mexican War required it to be put to bed again with the 1850 Compromise, but after Kansas-Nebraska and Dred Scott, Lincoln and the Republicans set sail on a policy of "no victory, no peace", when Lincoln gave the 1858 "House Divided" speech, the implications of which were clear: that no matter what he said about the extension of slavery, Lincoln was committed to the extinction of slavery, and therefore the extinction of the cotton economy and with it the livelihood of the agrarian South.

44 posted on 01/11/2011 12:53:06 AM PST by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
Nonsense - and don't accuse me of lying. I provided links to the full text of the declarations of secession (after reading them in full), and excerpted sections which indicate clearly that slavery was very much an issue for several of the states which seceded

Sorry -- you're right, I had another look, and saw the link to the Texas Declaration I wanted to address.

My bad, I should have looked closer.

That all said, I wanted to point out, and I think I did above (or on the other thread) that the "it was all about slavery!" meme is one that has been pushed for 20 years by notoriously Pink professors for justly suspect reasons, and it just happens to conform to the political needs of 'Rat Fink ex-SDS, ex-New Democrat politicians like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Something Clinton was always telling "battleground State" voters when he was running for president was, "Ah grew up with those boys, Ah know how turrible awful wicked bad they are!" It was rabble-rousing and bloody-shirt politics at its worst, and the "slavery" meme has been made to subserve the Clintons and Obamas at the expense of anything resembling historical perspective.

Just as well the controversy brought attention to the issues, though, since eventually people will cut through the smoke and mirrors and see who's been lying to them.

Not that Thomas DiLorenzo will be sustained in all his revisionist tropes -- but at least the issues get raised to be fought out again, this time with more research, more rediscovered papers, and more truth than has been seen since the Civil War itself, when certain subjects got all covered up in thick coatings of powdered marble.

45 posted on 01/11/2011 1:05:35 AM PST by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
Other than the solecism with respect to your links, what did you think of the rest of my reply?
46 posted on 01/11/2011 1:13:39 AM PST by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
In fact, I doubt there is much discussion of slavery as an evil by prominent southerners during the whole decade of the '50s.

"I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?"--Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856

47 posted on 01/11/2011 1:38:13 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

Natchez was full of transplanted Northerners hoping to get rich.


48 posted on 01/11/2011 1:40:43 AM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus; Idabilly; cowboyway
This article was proposed, and rejected, at the Philadelphia Convention:

"Under this Constitution, as originally adopted and as it now exists, no State has power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States; and this Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance of its delegated powers, are the supreme late [sp?] of the land, anything contained in any constitution, ordinance, or act of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
28 nays to 18 yeas

Link. (courtesy FReeper Idabilly, who posted it to another thread last March)

49 posted on 01/11/2011 1:42:17 AM PST by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Great Lee quote -- did he get it right, or what?

Although the abolitionist must know this, .... and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?"

Yankees from Massachusetts and Ohio haven't changed in 160 years. "Yankee" is originally a Dutch word that arose among the Anglo-Dutch privateers of the 17th century; its etymology is somewhat cloudy, but it seems to have meant, originally, something fairly close to "horse's ass".

50 posted on 01/11/2011 2:02:25 AM PST by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-489 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson