Yeah, what's your point? Have you not seen maps of confederate Arizona territory? They covered the southern half or so of New Mexico and specifically identified that as their political jurisdiction. Santa Fe to the north was across the border.
But your history is way skewed.
I think not. History supports my position as secession happened in convention their before the end of March. The Texas forces you purport to have "invaded" and forced the secession of Arizona did not come until July, where they releaved the secessionist regions of the territory from an undesired union presence that was trying to reclaim the region for the union.
The territorial governor of New Mexico (Henry M. Connelly) called on all New Mexicans to resist the Texas invaders. Unless, of course, by territorial governor you mean John Baylor who attacked New Mexico and installed himself as governor of Arizona at Mesilla.
The one and only! Baylor's expedition into New Mexico came directly at the request of representatives from Mesilla and Tuscon who had already aligned with the confederacy yet faced a nearby union presence trying to prevent their exercise of self government. Upon arrival he defended Mesilla from a yankee attack on the secessionist city. That was July 1861. Mesilla and Tuscon adopted the secession resolution by the end of March.
I hardly think that the attack on New Mexico by Texas (which lasted for about 12 months starting in August of 1861 and ending in the withdrawal of the Texans from the New Mexican territory completely) was an unamed conspiracy - especially since the Texans were occupying Tucson and Mesilla at the time.
Uh, no they weren't. Mesilla's convention was held on March 16, 1861. Tuscon's was held on March 28, 1861. Baylor reached El Paso in July and was met with representatives from Mesilla and Arizona telling of the situation of a union encampment outside of Mesilla at Fort Fillmore that was there to retake the territory. Baylor responded by splitting his forces and taking half in to defend the city. The yankees attacked upon his arrival and lost the battle, went for a retreat, got cut off by Baylor, and surrendered.
Boy you sure do like picking and choosing.
There's nothing wrong with me calling you on an unsubstantiated claim about an historical document. The Cherokee Nation stated its causes against the north. You come along 140 years later, pretend that you know what they were thinking better than them, and arbitrarily dismiss their declaration's content because it doesn't suit your skewed "it was all slavery and nothing else" view of the war.
And yet, you refuse to accept Lincoln at his word
I'm perfectly content with analyzing his words and, where evidence exists to show they were his genuine beliefs, accepting them as that. But I also recognize the fact that Lincoln himself was very skilled in political deception, rhetoric, and even fibbing when it suited him - a character that appeared in many of his most prominent speeches.
even going so far as to distort the meaning of Lincoln's words on invasion by offering up a textual rail split.
One problem. Lincoln's message was simply not distorted by the truncation of that quote. I truncated it as my interest was in his plainly stated definition of "invasion." Later he goes on to say that recovering the forts and collecting the taxes and all that stuff does not constitute invasion. That's fine and all, but Lincoln did a heck of a lot more than simply recover a couple of forts from the confederates. He did exactly what his own definition says to be invasion - marching an army into a region against the will of its people and in hostility toward them.
At least I don't do that.
No. You just tell lies about how a perfectly valid quotation of Lincoln somehow says something different when considered with the sentences following it when this is simply not the case.
You sure love that term non-binding, don't you.
Do you deny its accuracy? If so, please cite the legislative passages demonstrating it to have been a matter of statute legally enacting secession in Texas. Otherwise it is a description grounded in historical accuracy (unlike your own mega-hyperbole which called the thing the equivalent of a Declaration of Independence) in which case you have no grounds to challenge my characterization.
Using your reasoning, the Texas resolution to join the Confederacy was also a non-binding resolution because it was never submitted to a popular vote.
Really? Cause the scan of the document itself located online here says differently: http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/images/earlystate/ord.jpg
Quoted from the transcription: "This ordinance shall be submitted to the people of Texas for their ratification or rejection, by the qualified voters, on the 23rd day of February, 1861, and unless rejected by a majority of the votes cast, shall take effect and be in force on and after the 2d day of March, A.D. 1861. PROVIDED, that in the Representative District of El Paso said election may be held on the 18th day of February, 1861."
Officially reported totals of the popular vote itself 46,153 for and 14,747 against. So it looks like you were fibbing again.
Hogwash.
Surely you've heard of the Hartford Convention, have you not? Or the attempted thwarting of the will of the people of Kansas through the (almost successful) ramming down their throats of the LeCompton constitution.
You lodge interesting grievances over Kansas, yet all come from the Northern side. Hate to break it to ya but the yankees had plenty of blood on their own hands during that whole affair. John Brown made a bad habit of eliminating pro-southern civilians from the territory by capturing them and their children in the middle of the night, hacking their heads open, and spreading their entrails along the roadside as a warning to other southerners living their.
Or the meddlin of Texas
Meddling? Texas voted to join the union on its own with absolutely no doubt it would become a southern state. The yankees, Lincoln included, vehemently opposed Texas and even spoke up in Congress on behalf of Mexican dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana, one of the most notorious tyrants of the 19th century, in attempt to thwart Texas' entry into the United States.
in New Mexican affairs to ensure that they entered the Union as a slave territory.
As if the yankees did not want the region for their own? You seem to be keen on accusing the south of trying to bring in new states as slave states but conveniently ignore the entirity of aggressive moves made by others.
There are many more examples of southern coercion than of northern.
Really? Such as what? Texas was not coerced by anybody and despite your implication otherwise, coercion in Kansas was a two sided fight with some of its bloodiest acts committed by the northerners.
Read Article I of the Constitution sometime. It is rather amusing.
I suppose you would find it that, particularly the part where suspension of Habeas Corpus is listed among LEGISLATIVE acts.
You might note that the federal government is given certain specific powers that are denied to the state. Amongst those powers denied to the states is the ability to act as supreme sovereign powers. To do so is an act of rebellion under the constitution clear and simple.
But at the same time, the right of rebellion against a coercive government that violates a clearly expressed right of the same people to self government supersedes any statutory limitation. Further, when the national government itself (i.e. that constitution) is a voluntarily entered creation of the states it is difficult to argue that it legitimately gained authority beyond that which its creators gave it to begin with.
Don't delude yourself. Those were federal forts.
Initially. But just the same, forts in most east coast American harbors were initially British forts. Does that mean Britain still has a right to them after the political separation from that nation has already occured?
The state of S.C. opened up hostilities by firing on Ft. Sumter and "Star of the West."
Yeah, and it's funny how that little incident didn't require a massive union invasion army in return. For some strange reason Sumter, which suffered NO CASUALTIES in the battle, did. Methinks it has something to do with a man named Lincoln.
Lincoln was merely trying to retain what belonged to the Federals.
If that is true, then Lincoln must have thought the entirity of the South "belonged to the Federals" because that's what he invaded, that's what he conquered, and that's what he retained - not just some little fort in a harbor or two, but the entirity of the southern states.