The founders maintained and documented oppression by the Crown. The South was unable, at least with a straight face, to make the same claim. Instead, they realized they were falling into the political minority for the first time, and tried to bolt from the national obligations.
You used to be a little faster on the uptake, but now you're just being, "slothful."
"The Senate is known to have properly called itself to order and the House clerks, secretaries, etc. are all known to have been there."
I am sure the Col. Moore, CSA, is an unbiased source for writing the Confederate history of Missouri. I seem to recall the you and your neo-reb buddies had all sorts of problems with the supposed bias of the author of the Union version of events. But I'll be glad to accept Moore's version for what it is; unsourced, unfootnoted, and undocumented.
Nobody denies that he wrote from a southern perspective. That said, his history is not marred by flagrant partisanship and in fact is still in print 130 years later. It is one of the most, if not the most, honest versions written by a contemporary to the war itself and, absent specific proof otherwise, you have no basis on which to reject his word.
I seem to recall the you and your neo-reb buddies had all sorts of problems with the supposed bias of the author of the Union version of events.
Your union author was an extreme partisan who admittedly based his history on the claims of a propagandist Wide Awake-controlled newspaper. It was something akin to a history of the occupation of Iraq based upon accounts in the newspaper of Muqtada Al-Sadr. Naturally, it was also replete with outrageous and inflamatory claims as well as factual errors.
Moore's version, though admittedly southern, is a far more tempered and credible account by a witness to many of the events he described. If you take issue with those descriptions you are free to produce evidence to the contrary. But on that you cannot and have not.