The South Carolina Secession Statement of 1860 and the One Florida Initiative: The Limits of a Historical Analogy and the Possibility of Racial Reconciliation

Authors

Martina D. Carcieri, University of North Florida

First Page

577

Document Type

Article

Abstract

In Part II, we shall examine the Secession Statement in order to understand more fully the case it makes against the northern states and national government. Only then shall we be able to appreciate why this legally compelling document is ultimately not convincing. With that foundation, Part III examines One Florida opponents' arguments for preferences by government and the weaknesses of those arguments. With this background, we shall see in Part IV how One Florida opponents' position actually resembles that of South Carolina more than that of the Northerners, and ultimately embraces not civil society, but instead a state of war. In Part V, however, I assert that there may be two ways out of such a war. As a political matter, I shall argue that since One Florida opponents' position is unsupported by the analogy to that of the antebellum Northerners, and given the likely vote on the FCRI, they should moderate their stance if they truly want to defend minorities' long-term interests. As a philosophical matter, I shall conclude, their embrace of the warfare mentality undermines our collective human interests, and is fundamentally inconsistent with the lessons of great teachers like Dr. Martin Luther King and Socrates.

Recommended Citation

Martina D. Carcieri, The South Carolina Secession Statement of 1860 and the One Florida Initiative: The Limits of a Historical Analogy and the Possibility of Racial Reconciliation, 13 St. Thomas L. Rev. 577 (2001).
Available at: https://scholarship.stu.edu/stlr/vol13/iss2/6