just your size...
Posted on 06/25/2010 4:31:27 PM PDT by central_va
Open Message to Mr. Beck (self proclaimed historian). Tonight on your TV show you said that you read the Confederate Constitution and I paraphrase "it had slavery written all over it, all about slavery blah blah blah". You are incorrect sir, I did a word search on the document and the word slavery appears "one" time. Everyone can try it for themselves at the link provided below.
Can never trust a Yankee, even a goofy entertaining one.
;>)
WIJG: I always love to piss off an ignorant bigot - like you, for example (see your Post #753: "Who knows or cares what some tar heel thinks is facinating")...
Thanks, once again, for proving my point...
;>)
just your size...
Little bit out of control, are you? Or is it just your "stuner?" Miss your meds tonight?
;>)
I was in the military so know what FUBAR is an acronym for. For you I think I'll stick with the the simple yet accurate term, moron.
Anything original will go beyond your ability to understand it, scum_truck.
Here's one for you to decipher: Foxtrot Uniform.
The only thing I ever took from a POS yankee was a rifle; never fired and only dropped once.
Have a shitty day, fudge_packer_truck.
Right back at you Clownboy. Maybe I should ping the Yankee freeper you stole that phrase from, so he can smack you around some more. Nothing original comes from that black eyed pea-brain of yours, does it?
Speaking of bigots and hypocrites Magoo, take a look a Clownboy's #902.
cB: He's a Yankee POS
That was posted to you directly over a day ago and yet you expressed no moral outrage at his obvious and unreasonable bigotry and hatred toward folks of northern origin.
Compare that to your repeated intemperate remarks over my alleged slur against..tarheels (which was not even directed to you and which you intentionally misinterpreted), and I'd say your faux outrage amounts to rank hypocrisy on a grand scale.
So which is it sport? Are you really a concerned freeper trying to root out bigotry wherever it might appear, or just another redneck punk trolling the forum and selectively screaming about imagined racism like a left-wing girl scout?
mt: That was posted to you directly over a day ago and yet you expressed no moral outrage at his obvious and unreasonable bigotry and hatred toward folks of northern origin.
I didn't respond because - [sob] - I'm a "Yankee," too. He hurt my feelings; and on top of your repeated insults, it was just too much to bear...
;>)
Compare that to your repeated intemperate remarks over my alleged slur against..tarheels (which was not even directed to you and which you intentionally misinterpreted), and I'd say your faux outrage amounts to rank hypocrisy on a grand scale.
Ouch! Now you've really hurt my feelings!
;>)
So which is it sport? Are you really a concerned freeper trying to root out bigotry wherever it might appear, or just another redneck punk trolling the forum and selectively screaming about imagined racism like a left-wing girl scout?
"Redneck punk?" Ohhh, that hurt almost as much as IncPen's "whipping your slaves" insult. And "left-wing girl scout?" Oh that hurts even more (especially coming from someone who's WAY to the left of me - don't I meet your standards, Comrade?). Thank God you forgot to mention "Peckerwood Klan" (your Post #844) and "New White Pampers Party" (your Post #830) or I would be in real pain.
Fortunately, I don't take you very seriously, because you're an ignorant, South-hating bigot - which you've proved repeatedly (see the posts I mentioned above, and many others). And besides, you've told us that you've set your "stuner to 'ignore'," which means you obviously didn't mean to post anything to me at all...
;>)
In other words now that you've been exposed as a self loathing redneck troll pretending to be a concerned freeper you just want to forget about it. Is that it sport?
The only people today I see whining about imagined racism from conservatives are elements of the NAACP, the CBC, and cunning runts like you.
"Self loathing redneck troll pretending to be a concerned freeper?" Gosh, there you go hurting my feelings again!
;>)
By the way: does this mean your "stuner" ISN'T set "to 'ignore?'"
(LOL!!! ;>)
The only people today I see whining about imagined racism from conservatives are elements of the NAACP, the CBC, and cunning runts like you.
Really? By all means, please feel free to QUOTE the post where I accused any conservative of "racism." I'm feeling generous, so include yourself, although you're obviously not a conservative.
And "cunning runts?" Bravo! That would really hurt my feelings - except you used the slur already in Post #937. Can't think of anything new or original? No surprise there (please see my Post #754)...
Oh, and have a nice day!
;>)
You can't try somebody for something that isn't illegal.
Definitely won't be YOU smacking any body around....except maybe your fat wife.
You used to have a picture of yourself on your 'about' page and you look like too much of puss to ever challenge any body like me, so why don't you just quit before you fly off into another homo rage and give your fat wife another black eye.
So, you accuse me of "whining about" conservative "racism," and can't substantiate it?
No surprise there.
;>)
Just for grins, let's look at a summary of your recent posts on this thread:
“creepy [Southern] flag fetish,” “get lost,” “stfu about it,” “[Southern] stained banner cultists,” “You're a liar,” “stfu,” “your special capabilities,” “inbred southern bigot,” “the southern rat (ratus rockwellius),” “stfu,” “Maine is darker than the church you attend,” “neo-secessionist ,” “Who knows or cares what some tar heel thinks,” “these inbred haters,” “the New White Pampers Party,” “ Malik Shabazz,” “G.F.Y.,” “Peckerwood Klan,” “new record for stupid,” “make your case boy,” “I'll set my stuner to 'ignore',” “sex crazed poodle,” “Don't you have a life,” “anything written by clownboyway,” “du joir example [of haters],” “Why don't you 'girls' get a room, then have your tickle fight,” “clownboy,” “redneck version of Mister Magoo,” “Got sand in yer 'hoo-hoo',” “You are one cunning runt,” “G.F.Y.,” “Clownboy,” “black eyed pea-brain,” “redneck punk,” “racism,” “left-wing girl scout,” “self loathing redneck troll,” “cunning runts,” & etc.
Guess what? You're a South-hating bigot - a point proved by your own words.
As noted previously, have a nice day...
;>)
Confronting Civil War Revisionism:
Why the South Went To War
The rewriting of history in any area is possible only if: (1) the public does not know enough about specific events to object when a wrong view is introduced; or (2) the discovery of previously unknown historical material brings to light new facts that require a correction of the previous view. However, historical revisionism – the rewriting “of an accepted, usually long-standing view… especially a revision of historical events and movements” 1 – is successful only through the first means.
Over the past sixty years, many groups, exploiting a general lack of public knowledge about particular movements or events, have urged upon the public various revisionist views in order to justify their particular agenda. For example, those who use activist courts to advance policies they are unable to pass through the normal legislative process defend judicial abuse by asserting three historically unfounded doctrines: (1) the judiciary is to protect the minority from the majority; (2) the judiciary exists to review and correct the acts of elective bodies; and (3) the judiciary is best equipped to “evolve” the culture to the needs of an ever-changing society. These claims are directly refuted by original constitutional writings, especially The Federalist Papers. (See also the WallBuilders’ book, Restraining Judicial Activism.)
Likewise, those who pursue a secular public square seek to justify their agenda by asserting that the Founding Fathers: (1) were atheists, agnostics, and deists, and (2) wrote into the Constitution a strict separation of church and state requiring the exclusion of religious expressions from the public arena. These claims are also easily rebuttable through the Founders’ own writings and public acts. (See also the WallBuilders’ book, Original Intent.)
A third example of historical revisionism involves the claim that the 1860-1861 secession of the Southern States which caused the Civil War was not a result of the slavery issue but rather of oppressive federal economic policies. For example, a plaque in the Texas State Capitol declares:
Because we desire to perpetuate, in love and honor, the heroic deeds of those who enlisted in the Confederate Army and upheld its flag through four years of war, we, the children of the South, have united together in an organization called “Children of the Confederacy,” in which our strength, enthusiasm, and love of justice can exert its influence. We therefore pledge ourselves to preserve pure ideals; to honor our veterans; to study and teach the truths of history (one of the most important of which is that the war between the states was not a rebellion nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery), and to always act in a manner that will reflect honor upon our noble and patriotic ancestors. (emphasis added)
Other sources make the same false claim, 2 but four notable categories of Confederate records disprove these claims and indisputably show that the South’s desire to preserve slavery was indisputably the driving reason for the formation of the Confederacy.
1. Southern Secession Documents
From December 1860 through August 1861, the southern states met individually in their respective state conventions to decide whether to secede from the Union. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina became the first state to decide in the affirmative, and its secession document repeatedly declared that it was leaving the Union to preserve slavery:
[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding [i.e., northern] states to the institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations. . . . [T]hey have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery. . . . They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes [through the Underground Railroad]. . . . A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the states north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States [Abraham Lincoln] whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common government because he has declared that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. . . . The slaveholding states will no longer have the power of self-government or self-protection [over the issue of slavery] . . . 3
Following its secession, South Carolina requested the other southern states to join them in forming a southern Confederacy, explaining:
We . . . [are] dissolving a union with non-slaveholding confederates and seeking a confederation with slaveholding states. Experience has proved that slaveholding states cannot be safe in subjection to non-slaveholding states. . . . The people of the North have not left us in doubt as to their designs and policy. United as a section in the late presidential election, they have elected as the exponent of their policy one [Abraham Lincoln] who has openly declared that all the states of the United States must be made Free States or Slave States. . . . In spite of all disclaimers and professions [i.e., measures such as the Corwin Amendment, written to assure the southern states that Congress would not abolish slavery], there can be but one end by the submission by the South to the rule of a sectional anti-slavery government at Washington; and that end, directly or indirectly, must be the emancipation of the slaves of the South. . . . The people of the non-slaveholding North are not, and cannot be safe associates of the slaveholding South under a common government. . . . Citizens of the slaveholding states of the United States! . . . South Carolina desires no destiny separate from yours. . . . We ask you to join us in forming a Confederacy of Slaveholding States. 4
On January 9, 1861, Mississippi became the second state to secede, announcing:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. . . . [A] blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution [slavery], a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove. The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787. [On July 13, 1787, when the nation still governed itself under the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance (which Mississippi here calls the “well-known Ordinance of 1787”). That Ordinance set forth provisions whereby the Northwest Territory could become states in the United States, and eventually the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota were formed from that Territory. As a requirement for statehood and entry into the United States, Article 6 of that Ordinance stipulated: “There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory.” When the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, the Founding Fathers re-passed the “Northwest Ordinance” to ensure its continued effectiveness under the new Constitution. Signed into law by President George Washington on August 7, 1789, it retained the prohibition against slavery. As more territory was gradually ceded to the United States (the Southern Territory – Mississippi and Alabama; the Missouri Territory – Missouri and Arkansas; etc.), Congress applied the requirements of the Ordinance to those new territories. Mississippi had originally entered the United States under the requirement that it not allow slavery, and it is here objecting not only to that requirement of its own admission to the United States but also to that requirement for the admission of other states.]. . . It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves and refuses protection to that right on the high seas [Congress banned the importation of slaves into America in 1808], in the territories [in the Northwest Ordinance of 1789, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854], and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. . . . It advocates Negro equality, socially and politically. . . . We must either submit to degradation and to the loss of property [i.e., slaves] worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers to secure this as well as every other species of property. 5
(Notice that the Union’s claim that blacks and whites were equal both “socially and politically” was a claim too offensive for southern Democrat states to tolerate.)
Following its secession, Mississippi sent Fulton Anderson to the Virginia secession convention, where he told its delegates that Mississippi had seceded because they had unanimously approved a document “setting forth the grievances of the Southern people on the slavery question.” 6
On January 10, 1861, Florida became the third state to secede. In its preliminary resolutions setting forth reasons for secession, it acknowledged:
All hope of preserving the Union upon terms consistent with the safety and honor of the Slaveholding States has been finally dissipated by the recent indications of the strength of the anti-slavery sentiment in the Free States. 7
On January 11, 1861, Alabama became the fourth state to secede. Like the three states before her, Alabama’s document cited slavery; and it also cited the 1860 election victory of the Republicans as a further reason for secession, specifically condemning . . .
. . . the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States of America by a sectional party [the Republicans], avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions [slavery] and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama . . . 8
Georgia similarly invoked the 1860 Republican victory as a cause for secession, explaining:
A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the federal government has been committed [i.e., the Republican Party] will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia [in favor of secession]. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican Party under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. . . . The prohibition of slavery in the territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its [Republican] leaders and applauded by its followers. . . . [T]he abolitionists and their allies in the northern states have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions [i.e., slavery]. 9
Why was the Republican election victory a cause for secession? Because the Republican Party had been formed in May of 1854 on the almost singular issue of opposition to slavery (see WallBuilders’ work, American History in Black and White). Only six years later (in the election of 1860), voters gave Republicans control of the federal government, awarding them the presidency, the House, and the Senate.
The Republican agenda was clear, for every platform since its inception had boldly denounced slavery. In fact, when the U. S. Supreme Court delivered the 1857 Dred Scott ruling protecting slavery and declaring that Congress could not prohibit it even in federal territories, 10 the Republican platform strongly condemned that ruling and reaffirmed the right of Congress to ban slavery in the territories. 11 But setting forth an opposite view, the Democrat platform praised the Dred Scott ruling 12 and the continuation of slavery 13 and also loudly denounced all anti-slavery and abolition efforts. 14
The antagonistic position between the two parties over the slavery issue was clear; so when voters gave Republicans control of the federal government in 1860, southern slave-holding Democrat states saw the proverbial “handwriting on the wall” and promptly left the United States before Republicans could make good on their anti-slavery promises. It was for this reason that so many of the seceded states referenced the Republican victory in their secession documents.
It was not just southern Democrats who viewed the election of Lincoln and the Republicans as the death knell for slavery; many northern Democrats held the same view. In fact, New York City Democrat Mayor Fernando Wood not only attacked the Republican position on slavery but he also urged New York City to join with the South and secede, explaining:
With our aggrieved brethren of the Slave States, we have friendly relations and a common sympathy. We have not participated in the warfare upon their constitutional rights [of slaveholding] or their domestic institutions [slavery]. . . . It is certain that a dissolution [secession of the State of New York from the Union] cannot be peacefully accomplished except by the consent of the [Republican New York] Legislature itself. . . . [and] it is not probable that a partisan [Republican] majority will consent to a separation. . . . [So] why should not New York City, instead of supporting by her contributions in revenue two-thirds of the expenses of the United States, become also equally independent [i.e., secede]? . . . In this she would have the whole and united support of the southern states. 15
Other northern Democrats also assailed the anti-slavery positions of the Republicans – including Samuel Tilden (a New York state assemblyman and later the chair of the state Democrat Party, state governor, and then presidential candidate). Tilden affirmed that southern secession be could halted only if Republicans publicly abandoned their anti-slavery positions:
[T]he southern states will not by any possibility accept the avowed creed of the Republican Party as the permanent policy of the federative government as to slavery. . . . Nothing short of the recession [drawing back] of the Republican Party to the point of total and absolute non-action on the subject of slavery in the states and territories could enable it to reconcile to itself the people of the South. 16
Even the editorial page of the New York World endorsed the Democrats’ pro-slavery positions and condemned Republicans:
We cannot ask the South – we will not ask anybody – to live contentedly under a government . . . which burdens white men with oppressive debt and grinding taxation to try an unconstitutional experiment of giving freedom to Negroes. . . . A proposal for an abolition peace can never gain a hearing in the South. If the Abolition Party [Republicans] continues in power, the separation is final, [both] in feeling and in fact. 17
However, returning to an examination of southern secession documents, on January 19, 1861, Georgia became the fifth state to secede. Georgia then dispatched Henry Benning to Virginia to encourage its secession. At the Virginia convention, Benning explained to the delegates:
What was the reason that induced George to take the step of secession? That reason may be summed up in one single proposition: it was a conviction – a deep conviction on the part of Georgia – that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction was the main cause. 18
On January 26, 1861, Louisiana became the sixth state to secede. Days later, Texas was scheduled to hold its secession convention, and Louisiana sent Commissioner George Williamson to urge Texas to secede. Williamson told the Texas delegates:
Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern Confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery. . . . Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws, and institutions. . . . and they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity. . . . The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery if Texas either did not secede or, having seceded, should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. . . . As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation [Great Britain abolished slavery in 1833; by 1843, southern statesmen were alleging – without evidence – that Great Britain was involved in a plot to abolish slavery in America. Southern voices therefore called for the immediate annexation of pro-slavery Texas into the United States in order to increase pro-slavery territory, but anti-slavery leaders in Congress – including John Quincy Adams and Daniel Webster – opposed that annexation. Their opposition was initially successful; and in his diary entry for June 10 & 17, 1844, John Quincy Adams enthused: “The vote in the United States Senate on the question of [admitting Texas] was, yeas, 16; nays, 35. I record this vote as a deliverance, I trust, by the special interposition of Almighty God. . . . The first shock of slave democracy is over. Moloch [a pagan god requiring human sacrifices] and Mammon [the god of riches] have sunk into momentary slumber. The Texas treason is blasted for the hour.” That victory, however, was only temporary; in 1845, Texas was eventually admitted as a slaveholding state.] not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slaveholding states are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery. The isolation of any one of them from the others would make her a theatre for abolition emissaries from the North and from Europe. Her existence would be one of constant peril to herself and of imminent danger to other neighboring slave-holding communities. . . . and taking it as the basis of our new government, we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy . . . 19
Williamson’s encouragement to the Texans turned out to be unnecessary, for on February 1, 1861, even before he arrived from Louisiana, Texas had already become the seventh state to secede. In its secession document, Texas announced:
[Texas] was received as a commonwealth, holding, maintaining, and protecting the institution known as Negro slavery – the servitude of the African to the white race within [Texas] – a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slaveholding states of the Confederacy. . . . In all the non-slave-holding states . . . the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party [i.e., the Republican Party] . . . based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these southern states and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men irrespective of race or color – a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of divine law. They demand the abolition of Negro slavery throughout the Confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and Negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us so long as a Negro slave remains in these states. . . . By the secession of six of the slave-holding states, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North or unite her destinies with the South. 20
On April 17, 1861, Virginia became the eighth state to secede. It, too, acknowledged that the “oppression of the southern slave-holding states” (among which it numbered itself) had motivated its decision. 21
On May 8, 1861, Arkansas became the ninth state to join the Confederacy. Albert Pike (a prominent Arkansas newspaper owner and author of numerous legal works who became a Confederate general) explained why secession was unavoidable:
No concessions would now satisfy (and none ought now to satisfy) the South but such as would amount to a surrender of the distinctive principles by which the Republican Party coheres [exists], because none other or less would give the South peace and security. That Party would have to agree that in the view of the Constitution, slaves are property – that slavery might exist and should be legalized and protected in territory hereafter to be acquired to the southwest [e.g., New Mexico, Arizona, etc.], and that Negroes and mulattoes cannot be citizens of the United States nor vote at general elections in the states. . . . For that Party to make these concessions would simply be to commit suicide and therefore it is idle to expect from the North – so long as it [the Republican Party] rules there – a single concession of any value. 22
As Pike knew, the federal government under the Republicans was unwilling to abandon its anti-slavery positions; therefore the only recourse for the guarantee of continued slavery in Arkansas was secession – which Arkansas did.
Eventually, North Carolina and Tennessee became the tenth and eleventh states to secede, thus finishing the formation of the new nation that titled itself the Slave-Holding Confederate States of America. Southern secession documents indisputably affirm that the South’s desire to preserve slavery was the driving force in its secession and thus a primary cause of the Civil War.
;>)
(But thanks for actually quoting something other than your personal opinion - presumably. That's a step in the right direction!!!}
By the way, who was (were) the author(s) of the material you posted? And when and where was it published (if any-when & if any-where?????). And how does it relate to our previous discussions???
Please be specific...
;>)
;>)
Below is just a sample of information, which is readily available, for the state of Arkansas.
Henry M. Rector:
The First Secession Convention
The Secession Convention convened on March 4, 1861, in Little Rock's Baptist Meeting House. According to the custom of the day, ladies gathered in the balcony and threw flowers down to the speakers they supported. It soon became apparent that the Unionists had a narrow but unshakeable majority, despite attempts at persuasion by speakers such as Gov. Rector, who stated his belief that: "God, in His omnipotent wisdom, …created the cotton plant, the African Negro, and the lower Mississippi Valley, to clothe and feed the world, and a gallant race of men and women produced upon its soil to defend it and execute that decree.
Realizing that they lacked the necessary votes, at one point the secessionists even threatened to have the delta secede from the rest of Arkansas. In the end, however, they were content to secure the convention's agreement to place the measure before the people in an August election. The Unionist majority, however, was not unconditional in their opposition to secession. What united them was their opposition to war. Peace would require constraint by both secessionists and the federal government. As a message to the latter, they passed a resolution condemning any form of military coercion on the part of federal authorities. It contained a provision empowering David Walker, the chairman, to call the convention back into session if such coercion occurred before the August referendum.
The convention had scarcely closed when President Lincoln informed Jefferson Davis of his intention to resupply Fort Sumter, the blockaded garrison in the harbor of Charlestown, South Carolina. The Confederates responded by beginning a bombardment. Fort Sumter surrendered on April 14. That same day Lincoln issued a call to all the states for 75,000 troops to crush the rebellion. Rector responded with anger:
In answer to your requisition for troops from Arkansas to subjugate the Southern States, I have to that none will be furnished. The demand is only adding insult to injury. The people of this commonwealth are freemen, not slaves, and will defend, to the last extremity, their honor, lives and property against Northern mendacity and usurpation.
That same day Rector sent Solon Borland at the head of a regiment of militia to seize the federal garrison at Fort Smith. Meanwhile pressure mounted on Unionist David Walker to reconvene the Secession Convention. He issued the call with a heavy heart. Like most of those in the Unionist majority, Walker had resisted secession because he feared it would provoke war. Now that war was apparently inevitable, like most he was now prepared to cast his lot with the South.
Arkansas
AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union now existing between the State of Arkansas and the other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America. Whereas, in addition to the well-founded causes of complaint set forth by this convention, in resolutions adopted on the 11th of March, A.D. 1861, against the sectional party now in power in Washington City, headed by Abraham Lincoln, he has, in the face of resolutions passed by this convention pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshaled to carry out this inhuman design; and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas:
Oop’s! Forgot the source link for the secession convention info. I’ve got links to some of the actual minutes for the cvonvention somewhere. I think this one is sufficient for now.
http://www.oldstatehouse.com/exhibits/virtual/governors/civil_war_and_reconstruction/rector4.aspx
Yep. Can you just imagine the blowback had they tried him?!?! They couldn't risk the truth being laid bare.
Here's one of my favorite quotes from Davis (emphasis mine):
While contemplating the Northern States - with their Federal Constitution gone, ruthlessly destroyed under the tyrant's plea of "necessity," their State sovereignty made a byword, and their people absorbed in an aggregated mass, no longer, as their fathers left them, protected by reserved rights against usurpation - the question naturally arises: On which side was the victory? Let the verdict of mankind decide.
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.