WHEREAS, a sectional party of the North has disregarded the Constitution of the United States, violated the rights of the Southern States, and heaped wrongs and indignities upon their peopleThat's an interesting claim for the seceding touch-holes to make -- if as you say, the Arizona secession occurred a month before Lincoln took office. But that's not surprising in the least bit. Thanks again.
[You]: That's an interesting claim for the seceding touch-holes to make -- if as you say, the Arizona secession occurred a month before Lincoln took office. But that's not surprising in the least bit. Thanks again.
The complaint about the North disregarding the Constitution applies to the Republicans, the Free Soilers, the Whigs or those of any party that passed unconstitutional personal liberty laws that blocked the return of fugitive slaves from Northern states. Not all personal liberty laws were unconstitutional, but some clearly were and were intended to block Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution.
I've posted what Northern states started doing about those personal liberty laws once Southern states started seceding before. It clearly shows they knew their laws were unconstitutional. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2584706/posts?page=333#333.
You didn’t pick up on the “Whereas” clause that dealt with protection from the savages. The federal government was responsible under the Constitution to repel invasions (Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 15). Arizona said (back then):
WHEREAS, the Government of the United States has heretofore failed to give us adequate protection against the savages within our midst and has denied us an administration of the laws, and that security for life, liberty, and property which is due from all governments to the people
Texas had something similar in their secession document:
The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.
That was a very serious issue in Texas, and I imagine in Arizona too. In Texas, Mexicans took over the town of Brownsville and killed a number of citizens. The people of Brownsville then had to hire the Mexican army to protect them. There were up to 600 Mexican bandits in control of the county Brownsville was in. The state sent in the Texas Rangers. The Federals sent some troops. The Rangers crossed into Mexico and defeated the bandits on their home turf.
The federal government paid for part of Texas’ expenses for doing what was a Federal job. Texans were outraged that rather than pay the rest of Texas legitimate expenses Congress funded a study of the Great Lakes.
Indians were a terrible problem in Texas. From the Richmond (VA) Enquirer of March 5, 1861:
The number of persons killed and wounded in Texas by Indians during the past three months is estimated at 470.
That number sounds high. I need confirmation from another source. But the Indians were a very serious matter.
Don’t get me started on the impact of the tariff on the South.
I'll be off the threads now for a number of days. Sorry to have to end the discussion from my end.
The Declaration is a secession document as I recall, and Washington a rebel.