Posted on 11/30/2012 12:10:03 PM PST by Kaslin
Try putting this together in your mind:
However, four states published their reasoning in individual state decrees, which of course, were not legally representative of the state actions.
Therefore, any notion that these documents were formal, legal explanations is totally false.
At some point, you either need to simply stop posting or just admit that the facts are more rational than your most recent post.
What’s the matter pea, someone step on your tail?
Say, do you suppose they issued those statements in lieu of Hallmark Christmas cards?
"Read the ordinances of secession passed by the various southern states. A couple of them may not mention slavery as a primary cause of secession, but most do, loud and clear".
He is addressing the "ordinances of secession".
The Ordinances of Secession, originally numbering 7 (eventually becoming 11) do not list any causes, a direct refutation of the poster's characterization, and your repeated argument. Read for yourself here.
All were the legislatively approved, legal language documents by which each of the seceded states severed their connection with the Federal Union. All were the result of officially approved state legislators, voting in state conventions, legislatures, or by popular referendum.
What has come to be known as the declarations of causes, given in various historical contexts, were efforts of assorted entities tending to disclose their reasons for secession. As you pointed out, some originated from officials, others from witnesses, clerks, newspaper reporters, or whoever. None of these documents were officially derived from legislation, despite your weak attempts at trying to develop inferences from who printed what and on what date.
Again, he said and you supported that, "A couple of them (ordinances of secession) may not mention slavery as a primary cause of secession, but most do, loud and clear".
Most do?
In addition to the afformentioned Official Ordinances produced by a total of 11 state legislatures or conventions, there were others of nominal importance: 2 rump state conventions, 1 territorial convention, and 2 Indian tribes that published one or more secession documents around the beginning of the war.
Maybe the poster meant that they should all be takne together. Well, if taken altogether, they published at least 20 documents declaring or otherwise affirming their secession.
As also is known, the conventions of 4 of those 11 states adopted an additional “Declaration of Causes” as a nonbinding legislative resolution, and serving as public information.
To reiterate the facts and specifically and only with regard to the official documents of secession, none of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union.
As you wanted to point out in support of the poster's error, the convention of South Carolina also adopted a letter of causes addressed to all the other slave holding southern states outlining their list of justifications and urging others to join them. You offered up this document, but is the same type of casual narrative offered by only 3 other states. It is interesting reading but nothing more than ancillary composition.
Out of the 20 total declarations, ordinances, and other secession documents only 6 mentioned slavery in any context beyond geographical nomenclature (only 5 mention it at any length - the sixth is in a single brief clause).
Fourteen of those documents specify other causes, either in addition to slavery or without mentioning it at all.
So, what is the conclusion? Essentially about the only thing that is obvious is that your postings have been wrong.
At some point, you either need to simply stop posting or just admit that the facts are more rational than your most recent post.
It must be terribly lonely grubbing for the least likely logical rationales all the time. I do have to admire your dedication to The Lost Cause - misguided though it may be.
At some point, you either need to simply stop posting or just admit that the facts are more rational than your most recent post.
I know you are but what am I? lol
I grant that not everyone who supported secession was motivated by the same factors to the same degree. If it were "all about slavery" secession wouldn't have gotten as far as it did. But without slavery and the perceived threats to it, you wouldn't have seen a secessionist movement in 1860.
Essentially about the only thing that is obvious is that your postings have been wrong.
People can decide that for themselves. If there's anyone out there following this, they don't need you making pronouncements for them. And I trust they'll have the good sense to see this as something more than a personal quarrel between us.
"Essentially" (a pretty annoying way to begin a sentence) you're saying that these assemblies voted for secession for no reason or any reason you choose to make up, and we can't use contemporary documents written or authorized by people in those assemblies as evidence to establish just why they voted as they did.
If you want some kind of pat on the head because you demonstrated that the original poster was wrong in using the phrase "ordinances of secession" to refer to other documents, fine. Consider your head patted. But the discussion has gone beyond than that. And you can't trade on your little success forever.
If any of this is still in doubt I suggest you look at the papers and speeches of the secession commissioners officially appointed by the various conventions or state governments. Add their papers and utterances to those you've already mentioned and the picture is that much clearer. If you need to go further, perhaps there exist records of the conventions themselves. I doubt they'd contradict the documents we've discussed.
At some point, you either need to simply stop posting or just admit that the facts are more rational than your most recent post.
Yes.
“They are pretty clearly talking about slavery as something those states have in common and about threats to slavery that motivated secession.”
You make two assertions in one sentence. You jumped beyond what was being said by them to make an assertion that is wrong and not supported by the documents.
“But without slavery and the perceived threats to it, you wouldn't have seen a secessionist movement in 1860.”
You are now moving beyond what is being discussed here into your own biased realm of thinking.
“And I trust they'll have the good sense to see this as something more than a personal quarrel between us.”
No quarrel....just you trying to manipulate the truth, and being corrected for doing so.
“Essentially you're saying that these assemblies voted for secession for no reason or any reason you choose to make up, and we can't use contemporary documents written or authorized by people in those assemblies as evidence to establish just why they voted as they did.
I did not say that. Again, you are trying to kidnap the discussion and twist my commentary.
“If you want some kind of pat on the head because you demonstrated that the original poster was wrong in using the phrase “ordinances of secession” to refer to other documents, fine. Consider your head patted.”
Again, you are twisting the facts into a canard. That is not the poster's primary error, nor what I was demonstrating as his error. I would also add that you choose a very immature way of admitting that you were wrong.
“If any of this is still in doubt I suggest you look at the papers and speeches of the secession commissioners officially appointed by the various conventions or state governments.”
I have done that at length and on numerous occasions. If you had done the same, you would have realized early on that I was correct in pointing out the other poster's error.
“Add their papers and utterances to those you've already mentioned and the picture is that much clearer.”
Actually a thorough study of the documents shows just how diverse the arguments for (and against) secession actually were. It would surprise you if you decided to enter into some scholarly reading rather than wasting your time writing your type of drivel here.
“If you need to go further, perhaps there exist records of the conventions themselves. I doubt they'd contradict the documents we've discussed.”
It is obvious that you do not know if any of that sentence is true or false.
I know you are but what am I? lol
When you want to be rational and pursue a purposeful discussion, rather than just contradict and insult, get back to me and maybe I'll respond.
At some point, you either need to simply stop posting or just admit that the facts are more rational than your most recent post.
You replace reason with insults and arrogance, which is the way you always end your laborious debates.
Neither scholarship nor intellect seem to be inhabiting your thoughts on this topic.
Perhaps you should embrace your exhaustion.
I know you are but what am I? lol
At some point, you either need to simply stop posting or just admit that the facts are more rational than your most recent post.
I know you are but what am I? lol
At some point, you either need to simply stop posting or just admit that the facts are more rational than your most recent post.
I know you are but what am I? lol
At some point, you either need to simply stop posting or just admit that the facts are more rational than your most recent post.
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.