[cowboyway]

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

[cowboyway]

Ping!

[Vaquero]

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.

[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. Keep in mind northern state and some of their generals even had slaves.

[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?

[stainlessbanner]

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.

[piroque]

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/

[Verginius Rufus]

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.

[southernsunshine]

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.

[RasterMaster]

"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.

[BroJoeK]

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

The Deep South first seceded over slavery, and nothing else -- nothing else had ever been important enough to them to cause secession.
Only the perceived potential threat from Abolitionist Republicans was serious enough to drive the Deep South to secede.

Look again at the South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession -- in the first sentence it refers to itself and "other slaveholding states".
They thought of themselves as first-and-foremost, "slaveholding states."

And all of the reasons for secession are related directly to their existence as "slaveholding states."

Here is the key statement:

"On the 4th day of March next, this party [Abolitionist Republicans] will take possession of the Government.
It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States."

In fact, no such "announcement" had been made.
It was all a fantasy about what might happen in the future.