WI: The Illinois Slave Constitution of 1824

"Your committee are clearly of the opinion that the people of Illinois have now the same right to alter their constitution as the people of Virginia, or any other of the original states, and may make any disposition of Negro slaves they choose without breach of faith, or violation of compact, ordinance, or act of Congress." - Joint Committee of the Illinois General Assembly, 1824

Shortly after the joint committee issued this report, the Illinois legislature voted by a 2/3 majority to authorize a referendum to call a new constitutional convention. It was understood that this convention's purpose would be to legalize slavery in the state, moving Illinois into the slave state column and toppling the United States' balance of power between North and South. The legislature trusted that Illinois' largely pro-slavery population would support it.

As it happened, the referendum, the first in American history, was solidly defeated. Generally this is credited to Edward Coles, the antislavery Virginian who had somehow weaseled his way into the governorship two years previously. Coles campaigned tirelessly, squeezing every last vote he could out of Illinois' northern counties. When the referendum was defeated by a 2/3 vote, Illinois was surprised, but the Union breathed a sigh of relief. The issue of slavery and crypto-slavery in Illinois remained a local one.

So What If? The referendum failed pretty resoundingly, but this was not what was expected, and in later years Illinoisans would vote some militantly pro-slavery men to the governorship. Coles won the political contest, but the result was not inevitable. If he had not gained traction, and the proslavery faction had campaigned more aggressively, the convention could well have taken place. If a free state had allowed slavery in 1824, how would the United States have responded?

This is actually the first time I've heard about this. In 1824 was the Cairo region of Illinois a larger percentage of the population then it would be a few years later?

If Illinois becomes a slave state in 1824 theres going to need to be a Free State admitted to the Union pretty quickly, IOTL it was years before Michigan was admited as a Free State, prehaps here its pushed forward by a Congress looking for Balance.

Besides that I'm not sure how profitable Slavery can be in Illinois, or if it can continue a North by Northwest Expansion.

Benkarnell said:

Generally this is credited to Edward Coles, the antislavery Virginian who had somehow weaseled his way into the governorship two years previously.

Click to expand...

Weaseled? That's a rather poor word choice, especially for a man of Coles' stature. You're talking about a man who detested slavery with every fiber of his being and, when faced with the prospect of inheriting slaves from his father, actually investigated where in the US he could not only free them but where they would also have a fighting chance of rebuilding their lives.

That search is what brought Coles to Illinois and, after freeing the slaves he inherited, Coles set up them up on 100+ acre farms on their own out of his own pocket.

He won a four way governor's race as honestly as any other run during the period. Two of his opponents were nothing more than front men for local political bosses and the third was one of those self-promoted militia officers the US frontier produced by the thousands. The front men candidates split the political machine's ballot and the "officer" received little more than his family's votes. Coles didn't get a simple majority but he did get more votes than any other candidate.

He then spent two years of his life fighting the call for a state constitutional convention to consider legalizing slavery. During that time, he faced down mobs incited by slavers marching on his home, bore the cost of several politically motivated lawsuits, personally purchased and distributed anti-slavery pamphlets, wrote articles for newspapers, and even helped found a newspaper for the effort.

You could kill off Coles for your POD, but suggesting a man like that "weaseled" at any time during his life is pretty sad.

Don Lardo said:

You could kill off Coles for your POD, but suggesting a man like that "weaseled" at any time during his life is pretty sad.

Click to expand...

Chill out..."weaseled" can mean "snuck in". Winning a close four-man race can be called "weaseling in", though "sneaking in" sounds better IMO. If you honestly think that someone here is taking the pro-slavery side in a debate about 1820's politics, and you're not just being abrasive for the hell of it, then I don't know what to tell you.

EDIT: Interesting discussion topic, though. Oregon came quite close to getting a pro-slavery constitution as well, among the states that sided with the Union during the ACW.

Douglas said:

Chill out..."weaseled" can mean "snuck in".

Click to expand...

He won the election, he got the most votes. Not 50%+1, but the most votes in a four-way election. That's not "sneaking" or "weaseling" or anything else. It's winning.

If you honestly think that someone here is taking the pro-slavery side in a debate about 1820's politics, and you're not just being abrasive for the hell of it, then I don't know what to tell you.

Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that at all. I even suggested an alternate POD.

However suggesting that the man who was one of the foremost believers in emancipation of his day and who single-handedly prevented Illinois from becoming a slave state somehow "snuck" or "weaseled" into office is simply wrong.

I think the 2/3rds of Illinoisians who actually defeated the referendum stopped Illinois becoming a slaves state. He failed in his goal of preventing a referendum.

Aracnid said:

He failed in his goal of preventing a referendum.

Click to expand...

His goal was to prevent the convention and winning the referendum prevented the convention. He also bought the time necessary to educate the voters on the issue before the referendum was held.

The OP's idea is a good one and should prove fascinating. All I posted was a quibble over the unnecessary disparagement of an actual historical figure. If the nation had had more men like Coles during this period, the US could have very well turned out better than it has.

This personally is a very interesting idea for a timeline. Perhaps the easiest POD would be to have Coles either die or go to another state in the NW Territory to free his slaves. Another possibility would be to have the pro-slavery faction conslidate its support behind a single candidate as opposed to splitting the vote.

Slavery in Illinois was a very prickly issue. Mainly because despite the provisions of the NW Ordinance there was already slavery in Illinois. Unforunately for the sake of the timeline the window of opportunity is very small for the pro-slavery side. Early on the southern counties were filling up with people from the South, Virginia and Kentucky in particular. However, this wouldn't last long and the Northern counties would come to dominate the state very quickly. One wonders if the flood of northerners coming into the state would be slowed with the presence of slavery or not. Really the fact that I couldn't find an answer to that question prevented me from really exploring this idea more.

Slavery in Illinois would be interesting because it would have a very different character than anywhere else in the Union, and might make the institution more capable of surviving longer. The largest concentration of slavery was in the salt mines around Shawnee Town. With a pro-slavery constitution that could easily be expanded to the lead mines in Galena, which did see a few slaves.

As someone earlier pointed out this certainly would mean that some regional balancing would have to go on. A free state would have to enter the union, and while Michigan is a candidate to be the balance there are some problems with this. The main issue being the conflict between Ohio and Michigan over the Toledo strip. Michigan probably had the stronger claims based upon the conflicting boundaries but Ohio wound up getting the strip due to already being a state with representation in Congress. The need for more free states could lead to a possibilty that Michigan gets the Toledo strip to speed up Michigan enter the Union and perhaps another free state could be carved out of the Upper Penisula and some of the northern counties of Wisconsin.

Either way, I think this could be a real cool timeline.

Some interesting sources I ran across while digging into the idea myself:
http://www.illinoishistory.gov/lovejoy/illinois.htm
http://www.freedomtrails2legacies.org/slavery.htm
http://www.riverweb.uiuc.edu/NINETEENTH/Archives/transactions/1901/IL-slavery.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=ajuix3ByU94C&pg=PA373&lpg=PA373&dq=illinois+slavery+constitution&source=bl&ots=3Upuj0pnyQ&sig=EnNDj9tt_Yr1tm_-NltA_THdjPk&hl=en&ei=NVFNTaeYMsrUgQevntz_Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=illinois%20slavery%20constitution&f=false

County population data
http://www.harpercollege.edu/~jedstrom/populationtables.htm

This is very interesting. Giving Illinois a slave constitution in 1824 would, as others have said, make it necessary to find a free state to offset the switch over. While the abolitionist movement in the US wasn't very strong yet, this could galvanize the effort. With the dynamic of interstate trade changing thanks to railroad, northern IL will still fill up with immigrants and northerners. Economic ties with the Slave States will weaken and ties to the Northeast economy will become paramount. Over time the pressure will build to change the IL Constitution once again. I'm guessing this would happen in the late 1840s (when Delaware almost became a free state) or the early 1850s with the proto-Republican party taking Illinois emancipation as part of its platform.

Benjamin

Gah, the word "weaseling" was an attempt to portray things from the opposite point of view. If it were up to me, Illinois schoolchildren would know as much about Coles as they do about Abe Lincoln, and his name would be invoked whenever someone wanted to use politics to affect positive change. He's an example of everything that was ever right with democracy.

For heaven's sake.

But his successes were surprising and unlikely in the climate in which he lived. He successfully prevented this issue from spilling over into a national crisis. I'm interested in what would have happened if he hadn't been able to do that.

benjamin said:

This is very interesting. Giving Illinois a slave constitution in 1824 would, as others have said, make it necessary to find a free state to offset the switch over. While the abolitionist movement in the US wasn't very strong yet, this could galvanize the effort. With the dynamic of interstate trade changing thanks to railroad, northern IL will still fill up with immigrants and northerners. Economic ties with the Slave States will weaken and ties to the Northeast economy will become paramount. Over time the pressure will build to change the IL Constitution once again. I'm guessing this would happen in the late 1840s (when Delaware almost became a free state) or the early 1850s with the proto-Republican party taking Illinois emancipation as part of its platform.

Benjamin

Click to expand...

This is probably true, but part of the reason Northerners were able to take over as quickly as they did is that following the defeat of the resolution most Southerners stopped coming. It would be interesting to see what the results would have been had Illinois had a constitution specifically allowing slavery.

And Benkarnell I very much agree. Coles is a very remarkable historical figure that is sadly not known by many in Illinois. He was very progressive beyond just freeing his slaves, which was in direct contrast to the political climate of Illinois. While slavery was hotly debated in the state, Illinois had one of the strictest black codes in the North which was supported by both northern and southern elements in the state. In fact, Coles was accused of violating those black codes by bringing his slaves into Illinois and freeing them, a charge which was only dismissed in 1826.

mbanghar said:

This is probably true, but part of the reason Northerners were able to take over as quickly as they did is that following the defeat of the resolution most Southerners stopped coming. It would be interesting to see what the results would have been had Illinois had a constitution specifically allowing slavery.

Click to expand...

Yes, but non-slaving Southerners continued to enter the state in large numbers in search for virgin land. Slave holders will dominate along the Ohio and in some mining operations but non-slave holding small plot farmers will dominate in the central and northern portions of IL. Within a generation or so the non-slave holders will control the state government. Because unless one also gets rid of the Railroads and Chicago as a transportation hub, Illinois will become an increasingly important part of the larger Northern economy.

Benjamin

I agree with Aracnid - the fact that 2/3 of the people defeated the referendum implies that the anti-slavery faction in Illinois was already large and growing, which could derail my proposed PoD. But even among those in the "northern" counties (actually more like south-central counties today), most still came from Virginia and Kentucky. The influx or northerners had not really picked up yet. They were persuaded to vote antislavery in this instance. Later on, as I said, the same population would vote some very proslavery men into the governorship. (John Reynolds, 1830, and Thomas Carlin, 1838, come to mind.) I would argue that Illinoisans in 1824 still had basically a Southern outlook and culture, and that it's plausible that they could have been swayed in the other direction.

Long term, you'll get that influx of Northerners, no doubt. But the legislature could conceivably take measures to prevent it. Any such measures would seriously retard economic growth, but some might have thought of that as worth it to protect their peculiar institution.

I agree that Congress would start to scramble to find another free state. Any other effects? I'm not clear on the precise chronology, but this was the year of John Quincy Adams versus Andrew Jackson and the rise of the Democratic Party, which had an overall proslavery bent. This proposed constitution for Illinois would have been a major issue. Another thing to consider would be a potential domino effect. Could, say, Indiana follow Illinois' example and consider adopting its own slave constitution?

Benkarnell said:

I agree with Aracnid - the fact that 2/3 of the people defeated the referendum implies that the anti-slavery faction in Illinois was already large and growing, which could derail my proposed PoD. But even among those in the "northern" counties (actually more like south-central counties today), most still came from Virginia and Kentucky. The influx or northerners had not really picked up yet. They were persuaded to vote antislavery in this instance. Later on, as I said, the same population would vote some very proslavery men into the governorship. (John Reynolds, 1830, and Thomas Carlin, 1838, come to mind.) I would argue that Illinoisans in 1824 still had basically a Southern outlook and culture, and that it's plausible that they could have been swayed in the other direction.

Long term, you'll get that influx of Northerners, no doubt. But the legislature could conceivably take measures to prevent it. Any such measures would seriously retard economic growth, but some might have thought of that as worth it to protect their peculiar institution.

I agree that Congress would start to scramble to find another free state. Any other effects? I'm not clear on the precise chronology, but this was the year of John Quincy Adams versus Andrew Jackson and the rise of the Democratic Party, which had an overall proslavery bent. This proposed constitution for Illinois would have been a major issue. Another thing to consider would be a potential domino effect. Could, say, Indiana follow Illinois' example and consider adopting its own slave constitution?

Click to expand...

Clearly the northerners will come, and the number of slaves will be the lowest of any slave state. The anti-slavery faction was growing rapidly, and I do recall reading that the timing of the referendum was very important. The 18 months before the vote really allowed Coles and others to marshall the anti-slavery vote. Illinois was very much still culturally a southern state until you get the rise of Chicago and Douglas.

Indiana is very unlikely to become a slave state I would argue. The main reason that people in Illinois pushed for the split was over the issue of slavery. The situation in Illinois was unique in that slaves were already present prior to Northwest Ordinance with the French. Add in the influx of Southern settlers and you have the interesting situation that possibly lead to a slave state in the Northwest Territory.

How about a slightly different POD or a double POD then. What if Illinois had not received the land that includes Chicago when it became a state. The northern part of the state was added at the time of statehood without objection, but there is nothing to say that Illinois would have to get that territory. Illinois would then be less dominated by the North and would make it more likely for slavery to continue. Also would greatly increase the position of Wisconsin with the inclusion of the area of Chicago which by geography is destined to be a major hub in the US and again possibly lead to the Upper Pennisula being granted statehood later to add a free state.

mbanghar said:

How about a slightly different POD or a double POD then. What if Illinois had not received the land that includes Chicago when it became a state. The northern part of the state was added at the time of statehood without objection, but there is nothing to say that Illinois would have to get that territory. Illinois would then be less dominated by the North and would make it more likely for slavery to continue. Also would greatly increase the position of Wisconsin with the inclusion of the area of Chicago which by geography is destined to be a major hub in the US and again possibly lead to the Upper Pennisula being granted statehood later to add a free state.

Click to expand...

I'm actually more interested in the national effects of the 1824 bombshell - a free state "switching sides" - than I am in seeing Illinois be permanently open to slavery. Even if a potential 1824 constitution were to last only a decade, it would force the issue onto the national agenda for the second time in four years (after the 1820 Compromise), and I'd like to see how that would go.

mbanghar said:

How about a slightly different POD or a double POD then. What if Illinois had not received the land that includes Chicago when it became a state. The northern part of the state was added at the time of statehood without objection, but there is nothing to say that Illinois would have to get that territory. Illinois would then be less dominated by the North and would make it more likely for slavery to continue. Also would greatly increase the position of Wisconsin with the inclusion of the area of Chicago which by geography is destined to be a major hub in the US and again possibly lead to the Upper Pennisula being granted statehood later to add a free state.

Click to expand...

Love the suggestion. With the added geography, Wisconsin and Illinois are likely to switch their respective destinies. Illinois will wind up resembling Indiana 2.0 with a proto-southern mentality and a much smaller population. Springfield, in this scenario, will finally escape Chicago's shadow, and will probably come into its own as a major urban area.

Wisconsin will join Ohio as the one of the principal Midwestern states, industrially, politically, and demographically. Chicago will likely grow north, rather than east with an earlier formation of the Greater Chicagoland megalopolis stretching along the western coast of Lake Michigan. Wisconsin will likely have two major industrial belts, the first being the aforementioned coastline, the second being the supplementary industrial cities of the fox river valley. This would probably lead to a political split between eastern and western Wisconsin, similar to that of northern and southern Illinois. Assuming the emergence of the Republican party in a similar fashion to OTL, we will likely see a the smoke filled room cycling between WI, OH, NY for presidential candidates.

Benkarnell said:

Gah, the word "weaseling" was an attempt to portray things from the opposite point of view.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what your excuse is or was before or after the fact. You very much incorrectly portrayed an actual historical figure more people knew about than you had believed would know about and got called on it. Seriously, anyone who has researched or studied the emancipation movement in the US knows about Coles if only from his well intentioned support of the "colonization" movement which resulted in Liberia being founded.

But his successes were surprising and unlikely in the climate in which he lived. He successfully prevented this issue from spilling over into a national crisis.

Click to expand...

All the more reason not to fuck with his reputation, wouldn't you think?

I'm interested in what would have happened if he hadn't been able to do that.

Click to expand...

That is the question under examination here and it's a very good one too.

The immediate effect will be Michigan statehood for the "balance" issues already mentioned. Thanks to the Toledo Strip arguments, that will anger Ohio however and Ohio might become more sympathetic to the South perhaps becoming a western "Maryland" as a result.

In the short term, the fairly recent adaptation of the 1800's Mason-Dixon Line into a 1900's slave-free state boundary is trashed. The Line had only been used in that manner since the Missouri Compromise of 1820, so the Illinois referendum occurring just a few years later will render the Line's new use moot instead of it being both the de facto and de jure arbiter for free/slave status for the next generation.

In the long term, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1857 has just been brought forward a generation. Illinois has used popular sovereignty to determine whether slavery is legal within it's borders rather than Congress imposing the decision in pursuit of some mythical balance. This puts slavery in play in every territory's discussion about and move towards statehood and raises the potential for many more "Bleeding Kansas"-type struggles. Looking at the list of OTL admissions between the POD here and the start of the OTL Civil War, this could possibly effect Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon, and Kansas.

(Of course, the issue of slavery in some of the states listed will a foregone conclusion and the states listed might not be admitted in the order they were in the OTL or admitted at all.)

Also in the long term, with popular sovereignty now the model, slave states will share more/longer borders with free states and a new slave state could very well not share a border with an existing slave state. This will bring the issues dealt with during the OTL Dred Scott trial to a head far more early and start the efforts to pass/enforce fugitive slave statutes on the federal level earlier too.

Without the generation or so of immigration and population growth which allowed the OTL "North" to finally begin reducing the political power of the OTL "South" at the federal level, any discussion of slavery at the federal level ITTL is going to be decided in favor of the "South". That should serve to heighten feelings on both sides and not for the better.

Because popular sovereignty ITTL made slavery legal in Illinois, popular sovereignty should be able to make slavery illegal in Illinois and elsewhere too. Of course, the slavers will argue the opposite claiming the first referendum is the only one that counts and the law must now be obeyed in perpetuity but a drive for more referendums on slavery by both sides and more referendums by various political factions on other issues should result in an aversion to "direct democracy" for the next few generations. That would have helped current day California for example where ballot issues have basically fucked with state government so much the state is basically in a condition of systemic failure.

The Illinois referendum effects on national politics, especially presidential campaigns, should be profound too. The "My Turn, Your Turn" system is going to break much sooner and "modern" campaigns run by "modern" parties arise sooner too.

That change is national politics in turn will change the premier foreign policy issues of the period immediately following the Illinois referendum; Texas and Oregon. For example, the OTL's Mexican-American War was pretty much a Southern effort with the tiny federal army fleshed out by Southern volunteers and state militias. If, after the Illinois referendum and the immediate fall-out from the same, the North is even more estranged from the federal government, we could see the North shift from a apathetic stance on the war to a more obstructionist one.

Just some quick ideas off the top of my pointy head...

Benkarnell said:

I agree with Aracnid - the fact that 2/3 of the people defeated the referendum implies that the anti-slavery faction in Illinois was already large and growing...

Click to expand...

No. That 2/3rds margin of defeat was almost wholly due to Coles' nearly two years of tireless efforts. Coles first delayed the referendum and then used the time he gained educated the voters about the threat posed by the constitutional convention the referendum called for.

Prior to Coles' campaign, the attitude of the voters towards the referendum was one of either apathy or slight support. Other issues like internal improvements, banking regulations, and judicial reform were brought up in support of the referendum, some times honestly and some times to confuse the issue. Coles knew from the start that, once the referendum authorized the convention, the slavers would pack the body with their supporters and quickly pass the only legislation they care about; legalizing slavery. All the rest was just a smoke screen.

Coles eventually defeated the push for the convention by hammering home the slavery issue and successfully dealing with the other issues the convention was allegedly meant to address through regular legislative channels.

Don Lardo said:

It doesn't matter what your excuse is or was before or after the fact. You very much incorrectly portrayed an actual historical figure more people knew about than you had believed would know about and got called on it. Seriously, anyone who has researched or studied the emancipation movement in the US knows about Coles if only from his well intentioned support of the "colonization" movement which resulted in Liberia being founded.



All the more reason not to fuck with his reputation, wouldn't you think?



That is the question under examination here and it's a very good one too.

The immediate effect will be Michigan statehood for the "balance" issues already mentioned. Thanks to the Toledo Strip arguments, that will anger Ohio however and Ohio might become more sympathetic to the South perhaps becoming a western "Maryland" as a result.

In the short term, the fairly recent adaptation of the 1800's Mason-Dixon Line into a 1900's slave-free state boundary is trashed. The Line had only been used in that manner since the Missouri Compromise of 1820, so the Illinois referendum occurring just a few years later will render the Line's new use moot instead of it being both the de facto and de jure arbiter for free/slave status for the next generation.

In the long term, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1857 has just been brought forward a generation. Illinois has used popular sovereignty to determine whether slavery is legal within it's borders rather than Congress imposing the decision in pursuit of some mythical balance. This puts slavery in play in every territory's discussion about and move towards statehood and raises the potential for many more "Bleeding Kansas"-type struggles. Looking at the list of OTL admissions between the POD here and the start of the OTL Civil War, this could possibly effect Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon, and Kansas.

(Of course, the issue of slavery in some of the states listed will a foregone conclusion and the states listed might not be admitted in the order they were in the OTL or admitted at all.)

Also in the long term, with popular sovereignty now the model, slave states will share more/longer borders with free states and a new slave state could very well not share a border with an existing slave state. This will bring the issues dealt with during the OTL Dred Scott trial to a head far more early and start the efforts to pass/enforce fugitive slave statutes on the federal level earlier too.

Without the generation or so of immigration and population growth which allowed the OTL "North" to finally begin reducing the political power of the OTL "South" at the federal level, any discussion of slavery at the federal level ITTL is going to be decided in favor of the "South". That should serve to heighten feelings on both sides and not for the better.

Because popular sovereignty ITTL made slavery legal in Illinois, popular sovereignty should be able to make slavery illegal in Illinois and elsewhere too. Of course, the slavers will argue the opposite claiming the first referendum is the only one that counts and the law must now be obeyed in perpetuity but a drive for more referendums on slavery by both sides and more referendums by various political factions on other issues should result in an aversion to "direct democracy" for the next few generations. That would have helped current day California for example where ballot issues have basically fucked with state government so much the state is basically in a condition of systemic failure.

The Illinois referendum effects on national politics, especially presidential campaigns, should be profound too. The "My Turn, Your Turn" system is going to break much sooner and "modern" campaigns run by "modern" parties arise sooner too.

That change is national politics in turn will change the premier foreign policy issues of the period immediately following the Illinois referendum; Texas and Oregon. For example, the OTL's Mexican-American War was pretty much a Southern effort with the tiny federal army fleshed out by Southern volunteers and state militias. If, after the Illinois referendum and the immediate fall-out from the same, the North is even more estranged from the federal government, we could see the North shift from a apathetic stance on the war to a more obstructionist one.

Just some quick ideas off the top of my pointy head...

Click to expand...

Nitpick: The 1820 Compromise decided the parallel 36°30′ north as the boundry of slavery, not the Mason-Dixon line. But otherwise, all good points. Considering that this was just after a bitter debate on slavery that lead to the compromise of 1820, this is going to lead to a far earlier conflict between pro- and anti- slavery forces IMO, since it will galvanize the anti-slavery movement. Especially when you think about what popular sovereignty through the Kansas-Nebraska Act lead to IOTL, by as early as 1830, we could see mini-Civil Wars in states that are voting over slavery as abolitionist and pro-slavery forces pour in. This will end poorly for the abolitionists, methinks. It will either lead to A) The North states leaving the Union when an alt-fugitive slave act is passed or B) a 'Decades of Darkness' type deal.

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan said:

Nitpick: The 1820 Compromise decided the parallel 36°30′ north as the boundry of slavery, not the Mason-Dixon line.

Click to expand...

Very true.

I erred on the side of caution by using the M-D Line as part of my description of a slave/free boundary set by popular sovereignty as opposed to one set by federal fiat. M-D is too useful a piece of shorthand.