the problem with all these so-called "secession articles" is the following: 1. they were written by a handfull of un-elected planters, 2.NOBODY but the authors either read the articles OR cared what they said, 3.the authors were NOT the representives of ANY elected government AND they were NOT READ by the general public. in other words they MEAN/MEANT ZIP!
SERIOUS SCHOLARS dismiss these documents as MEANINGLESS to anyone but the 1% of rich planters;furthermore if the authors had decided to print "mary had a little lamb" it would have been just as important to the mass of southrons.
this is the same bravo sierra that Walt posts = long,boring,silly,off-point, meaningless, poorly researched tirades against nothing. if you want to be taken seriously by the REAL SCHOLARS on FR, of which there are many (i'd bet there are more earned doctorates on the forum than there are at most major universities!), start doing REAL research from primary sources OR join Walt, illbay, N-S & ditto in being the laughingstocks of FR.
to quote the Good Book on these documents, "----it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying NOTHING".
for dixie,sw
Shakespeare stole this from the Bible?
ML/NJ
I'm just posting the Articles of Secession. If you say they are meaningless, I really don't know how to respond to that.
start doing REAL research from primary sources
These are the Articles of Secession. I could dig up some more, from the other states, but again, if they are meaningless...
Thank you! That is essentially what I found when I was looking up the history of the Texas articles - they were adopted after secession was passed as nothing more than a non-binding resolution stating a position of the people who signed them and no more.
The actual secession ordinance that went before and was approved by the voters listed several causes for secession basically ammounting to "the yankees have violated the foundation of this government and abused its authority, therefore we reassert our right to self government and withdraw from the union we voluntarily joined." Slavery was not mentioned in this official statutory declaration that was adopted in a landslide by the voters.
Can you point me to one? Do "serious scholars" dismiss Toombs and Davis and Stephens who said the same things?
You sure as hell arn't talking about the fictional work of the kennedy boys are you?