I was obviously showing the mindset of those that would perpetuate slavery. Some of them were murderers.
Now it's most?
Obviously.
The only reference you've provided is a synopsis with no materials sourced.
Here we go with "it was faked!" again. You guys don't believe anything unless it's a claim that New Yorkers were shot in voting booths. lol
And your reference does not support that most were coerced into non-partitipation. It mentions it in passing along with the fact that many refused to participate in what they saw was an illegal act (much as Patrick Henry had done 80 years before during the Constitutional Convention).
It doesn't take much of an imagination to comprehend how someone is encouraged not to attend a political event.
Non-participants get screwed in any system of government. It's what the 'public good' is all about.
It's one thing not to participate. It's another to be "encouraged" not to participate.
No, in fact your supposed coup could not have taken effect until after the vote. Much like Ms Stewart, you seem to have a problem arranging dates in order.
First came the coup, then the referendum. Too late.
I was obviously showing the mindset of those that would perpetuate slavery. Some of them were murderers.
Funny, when 4CJ "showed the mindset" of those who ravaged Georgia by pointing out that "some were rapists" you cried to the heavens. Now you point to events in Kansas to show the mindset of Texans. While we're discussing mindsets look up some info on the Redlegs. Some of them were murderers as well.
Here we go with "it was faked!" again.
I didn't say it was faked. I said that you had not shown us any evidence. How funny that someone obsessed with a state's obligation to prove its acts feels no compulsion to provide any evidence in support of the bilge he spews forth on this thread. Perhaps we've lowered our standards of proof to something akin to, "The story is related on literally dozens of websites."
It doesn't take much of an imagination to comprehend how someone is encouraged not to attend a political event.
Right. From now on, when you post something with no reference or apparent support, I'll just imagine how it occurred per your instruction above.
It's one thing not to participate. It's another to be "encouraged" not to participate.
As I'm sure thousands of New Yorkers could tell you. Hmmm... Let's see... in that example we have a Union general discussing how it would be inappropriate for Mass. militiamen to kill New Yorkers, and an acknowledgement of the deed after the fact. What do we have in Texas? An ambiguous assertion that Unionists were 'discouraged' from participation in a convention who's result had no effect until ratified by a popular vote of the people. No dicussion of artillery rolling through the streets. No discussion of armed troops stationed at the polling places. No admission by any secessionist leaders after the fact.
But then, we have our imaginations to fill all of that in for us, don't we.