Replies

The Declaration of Independence not only notified Great Britain of the severing of national ties, it also gave reasons for this in great detail. None of the secession ordinances gives the detail that the Declaration of Independence did.

Oh really? Please show that Texas was getting less Federal protection than, say, Kansas or Missouri.

Absent a library at the present, I cannot speak for Kansas or Missouri. I can speak for Texas. Washington was well aware of an ongoing problem of Indian attacks on frontier settlements in Texas dating back to annexation. It was one of the reason's Texas sought to be annexed - they hoped the United States could help protect the frontiers. What happened after the Mexican war was a period of off and on assistance dominated frequently by neglect including some intentionally caused by the south-hating radicals in the north. They cut funding off for political reasons back then just like they do today, only back then frontier defense was often a life or death issue. Nevertheless the northern faction of Sumner played political games with it. By 1850 President Fillmore brought attention to the Indian attacks in Texas in what was an equivalent of a state of the union message. The problem emerged repeatedly throughout the decade and, according to the state, had worsened. As of 1860 the Texas' senators and representatives had reported the problem of Indian raids on the frontier repeatedly to the Congress with the complaint that defenses were being denied for strictly political reasons. Such a situation was a violation of the terms on which Texas entered the union, therefore they considered the contract broken.

Uh huh. From a slave-holding perspective, you are right.

No. Strictly speaking on the frontier defense issue itself - Texas entered the union with frontier defenses against Indian raids being among the terms of entry. Those defenses were not being adequitely provided despite Washington's awareness of the problem for the previous decade. Therefore the compact between the Texas and the union was violated. Randomly shouting "slavery" as you do in response to everything southern is shoddy scholarship to say the least.

This argument is totally bogus. When did the North invade Texas prior to the Civil War?

To the contrary. Northern sabre rattling was well known throughout the secession crisis and provided an underlying fuel for the southern secessionist cause. Southerners saw a northern-run government basically telling them "You listen to us now and we can do this the easy way or the hard way." The south saw this for what it was, coercion, and cited it prominently as a cause for secession months before a shot was even fired. Jefferson Davis appealed to peace in the face of a coming war in his January farewell speech. Louis Wigfall had openly called the north on it back in the first week of December. Resolutions of secession, such as that one from Franklin TN in February, saw it as well and cited it as their cause.

Even Lincoln knew what was going on. From December forward he was secretly corresponding with northern commanders to prepare plans for taking the southern forts and reinforcing the ones in union hands. The action that sparked Fort Sumter was one of such plan that had been months in the making.

Going 3 for 3 aren't you? Lincoln and other northerners pledged to *not* interfere with any southern instituions.

Public political pledges are a far cry from actions. Lincoln also publicly stated in February 1861 the following:

"What, then, is ``coercion''? What is ``invasion''? Would the marching of an army into South California, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit."

The president elect then pledged that his intention was for neither.

He sure didn't live up to that little fib.

The Cherokee document does. Arizona's ordinance, albeit a brief list, does. Some of the states, such as Florida, said very little either way other than that they were seceding. Some, such as Texas, give resolutions of principles causing their secession.

The Arizona document is a very brief list. They did not vote to secede until after they were invaded and occupied by Texas. For such a vaunted "states rights" supporter as Texas to do this is hypocritical indeed.

As for the Cherokee document, it is very evident that the Cherokees only saw what they wished to see. In truth, their problems came from southerners, not northerners. It was Jackson (a southerner) who wilfully disobeyed a Supreme Court ruling and had them removed from Georgia. They claim in their document that the south was okay, the north was evil. They totally overlook the fact that Davis refused to appoint a southern Supreme Court (although he was supposed to) or the nasty actions of southern partisans before and throughout the war (I'm not excusing the nasty actions of some northern partisans here). From the tone of the document, it very much appears that the only reason the 5 civilized tribes joined with the south is because the south looked like they were winning the war at the time.

Absent a library at the present, I cannot speak for Kansas or Missouri. I can speak for Texas. Washington was well aware of an ongoing problem of Indian attacks on frontier settlements in Texas dating back to annexation. It was one of the reason's Texas sought to be annexed - they hoped the United States could help protect the frontiers. What happened after the Mexican war was a period of off and on assistance dominated frequently by neglect including some intentionally caused by the south-hating radicals in the north. They cut funding off for political reasons back then just like they do today, only back then frontier defense was often a life or death issue. Nevertheless the northern faction of Sumner played political games with it. By 1850 President Fillmore brought attention to the Indian attacks in Texas in what was an equivalent of a state of the union message. The problem emerged repeatedly throughout the decade and, according to the state, had worsened. As of 1860 the Texas' senators and representatives had reported the problem of Indian raids on the frontier repeatedly to the Congress with the complaint that defenses were being denied for strictly political reasons. Such a situation was a violation of the terms on which Texas entered the union, therefore they considered the contract broken.

You will note that in "A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union" as adopted by the Texas secession convention of Feb. 2, 1861 (The actual vote of the people was Feb 23rd) has at a total of 25 paragraphs. At least 17 of these are devoted to the slavery issue (including the fact that slaves were property). Only 3 paragraphs can be construed to talk about the lack of protection from Indians and Banditti (Texas' history of sending raiding parties into Mexican territory did not ameliorate the situation). Most of their grievances concerned slavery. If I may post a representative sample from the document (Paragraphs 6 - 10) it becomes quite obvious that their main complaints by far concern slavery.

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.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions--a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

The Texans had it comparatively easy in the Indian Attack category compared to the Dakotas where Red Cloud totally kicked the tar out of the U.S. Army to such an extent, that the U.S. wasn't able to really do anything in that area until after the Civil War. The bald knobbers of Missouri (southern partisans, most of them) terrorized Missouri and Kansas for quite a few years in a way not seen in Texas.

No. Strictly speaking on the frontier defense issue itself - Texas entered the union with frontier defenses against Indian raids being among the terms of entry. Those defenses were not being adequitely provided despite Washington's awareness of the problem for the previous decade. Therefore the compact between the Texas and the union was violated. Randomly shouting "slavery" as you do in response to everything southern is shoddy scholarship to say the least.

Lessee now, the documents I quoted only have 3 paragraphs about defense related issues and 17 about slavery. Furthermore, it is obvious from the documents that the slavery issue was of far greater magnitude. I'm not randomly shouting slavery. We don't need to guess. The south says it loud and clear over and over. For truly shoddy scolarship on this subject, we have to go to Walter Williams and Tom DiLorenzo.

To the contrary. Northern sabre rattling was well known throughout the secession crisis and provided an underlying fuel for the southern secessionist cause. Southerners saw a northern-run government basically telling them "You listen to us now and we can do this the easy way or the hard way." The south saw this for what it was, coercion, and cited it prominently as a cause for secession months before a shot was even fired. Jefferson Davis appealed to peace in the face of a coming war in his January farewell speech. Louis Wigfall had openly called the north on it back in the first week of December. Resolutions of secession, such as that one from Franklin TN in February, saw it as well and cited it as their cause.

Sabre rattling? The south had made a habit of blackmailing the north for at least a decade prior to the Civil War by threatening to leave if the North did not give in. Each time the North caved in, the South demanded more. It was the South, after all, which forced the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. It was a southern-laced supreme court which tried to extend slavery into the North by declaring that laws restricting slavery were unconstitutional. It was the south which passed laws which made it legal for slavers to enslave free blacks in the north - without any Habeas Corpus. Most of the North at this time were not moving for the abolition of slavery from the south. All they wanted to do was prevent it from moving much further.

Alexander Stephens (who eventually became the southern vice-president) answered Lincoln's letter of Dec 22, 1860 (wherein Lincoln indicates that he has no intention of interfering with state control over slavery) with the assertion that the south did not really believe for a moment that the north was going to interfere with slavery in the states. The issue, as they saw it, was the north was preventing it from spreading to the territories. But for the South to scream "coercion" when they had been guilty of far worse in Kansas (the infamous Lecomption constitution for example) and Missouri takes a lot of Chutzpah.

Even Lincoln knew what was going on. From December forward he was secretly corresponding with northern commanders to prepare plans for taking the southern forts and reinforcing the ones in union hands. The action that sparked Fort Sumter was one of such plan that had been months in the making.

Oh? What correspondence is that? References please. The Buchanan administration was still in place. Even though Major Anderson moved his detail to Ft. Sumter on Dec. 26, 1860 (since it was more defensible) and the "Star of the West" was repulsed on Jan. 9, 1861 from resupplying Ft. Sumter, it wasn't until Feb. 15, 1861 that the confederate government decided to take Ft. Sumter and Ft. Pickens both of which were Federal forts - not southern forts as you have indicated. Also, at this time, it was Buchanan who was president, not Lincoln. Lincoln assumed that there was no immediate problem with Ft. Sumter, but soon after he became president, he learned that they needed supplies soon. This sort of contradicts your view that he was conspiring for months to relieve Ft. Sumter.

Public political pledges are a far cry from actions. Lincoln also publicly stated in February 1861 the following:

"What, then, is ``coercion''? What is ``invasion''? Would the marching of an army into South California, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit."

The president elect then pledged that his intention was for neither.

He sure didn't live up to that little fib.

You 'accidentally' left out the next part:

But if the United States should merely hold and retake its own forts and other property, and collect the duties on foreign importations, or even withhold the mails from places where they were habitually violated, would any or all of these things be "invasion" or "coercion"? Do our professed lovers of the Union, but who spitefully resolve that they will resist coercion and invasion, understand that such things as these on the part of the United States would be coercion or invasion of a State? If so, their idea of means to preserve the object of their great affection would seem to be exceedingly thin and airy.

When you don't tamper with the text, a whole different meaning is obtained...