[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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...

[GOPcapitalist]

The Arizona document is a very brief list.

Brief but direct. Lincoln cut off the contract for Arizona's mail stage in March 1861 without warrant and before there was even a war on hand. It effectively cut off the territory from the rest of the nation and world. They did not vote to secede until after they were invaded and occupied by Texas.

If you are implying doubt of genuine support for the confederacy by Arizona you are occupying very shaky ground. Following the loss of the mail, Arizona convened a convention in Mesilla on the New Mexico side to determine their political future and decided to secede. The secession option was then offered at a convention at Arizona's major town, Tuscon, chaired by the town's first mayor. Contrary to your implication, the territory was not immediately welcomed into the confederacy, which delayed its admittance at first fearing the burdens of a vast but unpopulated territory. Before Arizona was admitted into the confederacy the north began removing frontier emplacements of soldiers leaving the citizens there vulnerable to attack. The practical effect was to only strengthen their secessionist impulses. They joined the confederacy because the federals cut them off from the world and denied them basic defenses, not because of some unnamed Texas conspiracy orchestrated by a state government almost as far away as any city in the country with little more than uninhabited plains in between. Similarly the people of Arizona responded on their own to the confederate cause by sending men to fight in the east all the way up to the territorial governor taking up arms himself. In short, your version of history is skewed. Try again. For such a vaunted "states rights" supporter as Texas to do this is hypocritical indeed.

Only one problem - Arizona did not secede from some unnamed Texas conspiracy as you allege.

As for the Cherokee document, it is very evident that the Cherokees only saw what they wished to see.

Is it? Or did they simply happen to see what YOU wish they had not seen? Considering that they were there and you weren't, I'll have to take their word on it.

In truth, their problems came from southerners, not northerners.

Surely you don't mean to ignore Lincoln's little Indian war, do you? I hear that Sherman fellow was quite the friend of Indians as well for that matter.

It was Jackson (a southerner) who wilfully disobeyed a Supreme Court ruling and had them removed from Georgia.

I have no reservations about expelling Jackson from the southern cause. After all, was he not the president who opposed it at is earliest stages in South Carolina? Try again.

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)

The declaration of causes, a non-binding legislative resolution passed at the convention after the fact of the secession ordinance, was never voted upon by the people on the 23rd. That was the secession ordinance. Try again.

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.

Just as the North had made a habit of doing for the 50 years before that. Regardless, threatening to secede is a far cry from plotting to invade and coerce.

Oh? What correspondence is that? References please. The Buchanan administration was still in place.

Gladly.

"Last night I received your letter giving an account of your interview with Gen. Scott, and for which I thank you. Please present my respects to the General, and tell him, confidentially, I shall be obliged to him to be as well prepared as he can to either hold , or retake , the forts, as the case may require, at, and after the inaugeration. Yours as ever A. LINCOLN" - letter to Elihu Washburne, Dec. 21, 1860, marked "confidential," emphasis is original from Lincoln's letter.

"The events at Charleston are fast making a united north. The most conservative in N. Y. now say ?no more compromises,? and that the forts and U. S. property must be returned to the possession of the Government. Even Dan Sickles says the latter, and professes to be for fight." - Washburne to Lincoln, Dec. 30, 1860

That's the earliest correspondence of Lincoln I know of on the matter where he brings up military force as an option. Over the next several months he corresponded on the matter regularly with Winfield Scott and other advisors. Within days of taking office he asked Scott to put together a plan to take _all_ forts in southern hands.

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.

Nonsense. Lincoln had been plotting about Sumter all the way back in December. It was also a top issue of discussion in the White House for over a month between his inauguration and the fleet's departure. It was not some spur of the moment emergency relief force. Lincoln had been plotting the thing for months.

Also it was a southern fort insofar as it was in southern territory hundreds of miles away from any defensive interest of the north. Sumter was created as a federal fort by an act of South Carolina several years earlier but that act was rescinded during secession when South Carolina revoked all previous committments and ties to the northern government.

[GOPcapitalist]

In case you are still in doubt about Lincoln's plotting over Sumter several months before his inauguration...

Confidential
Hon. F. P. Blair, Ser. Springfield, Ills.
My dear Sir Dec. 21. 1860

Yours giving an account of an interview with Gen. Scott, is received, and for which I thank you. According to my present view, if the forts shall be given up before the inaugeration, the General must retake them afterwards. Yours truly A. LINCOLN

[lentulusgracchus]

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.

Arizona wasn't admitted as a state until 1912.

Arizona arguably didn't have the right to secede from anything, since it was part of the national territory of the United States. The citizens of Arizona must have been operating under the foolish notion that, as free Americans, they had the right to make their mind up about things, and to decide for their own polity what they wanted to do.

Like a good Marxist, you prefer that they should have waited obediently for Word to be propagated from Washington -- death to Eastasia, war is peace, love is hate, whatever.

[lentulusgracchus]

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).

Your gratuitous shot at Texas is noted.

Do I infer correctly that the Texas Rangers' activities against Mexican rustlers were legitimate in 1859, but not in 1861?

How do you define "Mexican territory"? Does your definition agree with what Mexicans think is Mexican territory? Have you checked with them, or are you just being a typically arrogant gringo, and presuming to speak for them?

Do I infer correctly from your remark that rustling was a one-way street, with Texans preying mercilessly on povrecito Mexican cattle-farmers?

Do I infer correctly that Texas had no complaint vis-a-vis Mexicans on the other side of the border, because of their own poor attitudes and political incorrectness?

Oh, but wait -- the United States of America had stormed Chapultepec itself, and imposed on Mexico an unequal treaty that secured California, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Nevada for the United States forever. But I suppose that must have been Texans' fault, too.

Is there anything else you would like to say about Texans? Or would you like to go retrieve your athletic protective cup first?

[lentulusgracchus]

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.

You mean like Pottawatomie Creek. Like Harper's Ferry.

Yeah, that's chutzpah, all right.

[lentulusgracchus]

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 Chief Justice Roger Taney, reading aloud from Article IV of the Constitution. The Missouri Compromise was a good attempt at agreement, but it was unconstitutional -- like Nullification.

Did you like the Nullification idea as much as the Missouri Compromise? It was an attempt to find a compromise, too.

But I suppose Southerners shouldn't have been on the Supreme Court in the first place, so that the Court could interpret the Constitution correctly, without their polluting input. Is that it?

[lentulusgracchus]

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.

Oh, really? Well, to quote you again,

Oh? What [blackmail/demand/further demand] is that? References please.

Yeah, that's right, Frume. I can assign homework, too. So, what was the "more"?

[lentulusgracchus]

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

Cheap shot. His ellipsis doesn't substantially alter the meaning of the passage. Lincoln is trying to make a case that "mere" enforcement of the collection of the revenues, etc., etc., was not an invasion.

Of course, that doesn't explain his ships' opening up on militiamen, and it doesn't by the longest stretch justify his sending Irvin McDowell with 13,000 men to occupy the Custis-Lee mansion the day after Virginia's people voted to ratify the secession ordinance. Did he send McDowell to make sure Mary Lee's mail got delivered?

Or perhaps McDowell's expedition was just a misunderstood IRS raid, and the Lees had forgotten to file something on time.

Either way, Lincoln's rhetoric was eyewash, and Cap is justified in pointing it out. Your attempt to impute dishonesty to him is likewise eyewash.