Skip to comments.a Republican President issued the Emancipation Proclamation
Posted on 09/22/2010 7:55:54 AM PDT by Michael Zak
On this day in 1862, President Abraham Lincoln (R-IL) issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Effective at yearend, all slaves in Confederate-controlled territory would be "forever free."
(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...
Republican, can’t say it enough
And a ‘democrap’ (Johnson) enslaved them again in ‘the great society’
...his actual quote “I’ll have them niggers voting democrat for years”
“And a democrap (Johnson) enslaved them again in the great society”
And another Democrap, another Johnson (Andrew), tried to turn back the clock in the Reconstruction era, going against Lincoln’s policies to give equal rights to blacks.
Oh well....a LOT of stuff republican presidents have done has turned out well after all. NOBODY bats 1000!!!
I’m guessing that young Amber has thus far avoided the public school system.
Honest Abe sure didn't care much for the Constitution.
But ... ask a black what Party, Lincoln, who freed the slaves was with, Democrat or Republican. You’ll be surprised at the answer. Just try it. Talk about failure of the education system, it is a good “test”.
“But ... ask a black what Party, Lincoln, who freed the slaves was with, Democrat or Republican. Youll be surprised at the answer. Just try it. Talk about failure of the education system, it is a good test.”
It certainly is.
As for the Great Emancipator himself, as most blacks are aware, he believed in the deportation of slaves he thought were absolutely inferior to whites in every way...while welcoming European immigrants with promises of streets paved with gold.
Lincoln quoted approvingly from a speech given by Clay in 1827: “There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children,” adding that if Africa offered no refuge, blacks could be sent to another tropical land.”
“If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery, and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost fatherland, with bright prospects for the future, and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation.”
In January 1855, Lincoln addressed a meeting of the Illinois branch of the Colonization Society. The surviving outline of his speech suggests that it consisted largely of a well-informed and sympathetic account of the history of the resettlement campaign.
In supporting “colonization” of the blacks, a plan that might be regarded as a “final solution” to the nation’s race question, Lincoln was upholding the views of some of America’s most respected figures.
Between late August and mid-October, 1858, Lincoln and Douglas traveled together around the state to confront each other in seven historic debates.
On August 21, before a crowd of 10,000 at Ottawa, Lincoln declared:
“I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”
In other words, he was all for freeing them ... just as long as it was somewhere else. The original NIMBY.
The speeches are widely available and are irrefutably his position.
Before the start of the September 18 debate at Charleston, Illinois, an elderly man approached Lincoln in a hotel and asked him if the stories were true.
Recounting the encounter later before a crowd of 15,000, Lincoln declared:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.”
“I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
This constant attempt to build the “free the slaves” virtue of Abe is inexplicable to me. There was far more at play in the War of Northern Aggression than the race panderers would care to admit.
Mr. Zak makes his living stirring up this mess. The history is the history. Pervert it at your peril; you will not win any blacks by this shameless pandering. I believe you will lose those who are not already fully aware of this charade and they are many. The bullying and pugnacious Republican Party Platform of 1860 has no reference to ending slavery, only the attempt to stop its spread to new territories, but the platform reeks of threat. Little wonder it provoked a fight and led to the imminent invasion of the South.
That is why Black folks are more than a little ambivalent about Abe. History is there to find if you look for it. If you are not black, read the quotes and read it as if you were. Then consider it was two years into the war before the toothless “Emancipation Proclamation” was enacted. And how was the war going for the north prior to the Proclamation?
The presidencies of Andrew Johnson and Lyndon Johnson, both of them Democrats, were disastrous.
If you try to apply today's standards of "political correctness" to our ancestors of 150 years ago, then no one alive at the time could measure up.
But consider: Lincoln was a well known anti-slave politician, though his "campaign" for election in 1860 included no comments on the subject whatever.
Indeed the issue in 1860 was not whether any slaves should be freed, but rather: should slavery be expanded into non-slave territories and states?
Despite Lincoln's silence, the South took his previous anti-slavery remarks as a great affront and justification for secession.
In the process of seceding, the South seized many Federal properties (forts, ships, customs houses, armories, a mint), fired on Federal ships and forces (all before Lincoln inaugurated), and eventually took Fort Sumter by force of arms (April 1860).
Then Lincoln responded to put down the insurrection, as he called it.
None of this had anything to do with freeing the slaves, much less granting them full rights of citizenship.
For two years, it's fair to say, the South had the best of the war -- with better generals and more highly motivated troops, they were often able to overcome disadvantages in numbers and materials.
So, did the Emancipation Proclamation change the North's fortunes of war?
No, the North's improving results on the battlefield made the Emancipation even possible.
Further, it could be argued that once war began, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was inevitable.
But first the Union armies must do better in battle, and this finally seemed to happen at Antietam / Sharpsburg in September 1862.
Point is this: for the first two years of the war it was only about secession, not emancipation.
Therefore sequentially: Lincoln deserves credit for first preserving the Union, then beginning to free the slaves.
If you try to apply today’s standards of “political correctness” to our ancestors of 150 years ago, then no one alive at the time could measure up.”
That was pretty much my point ... you can’t rewrite history; it is what it is. The fact is that the posts I was responding to were extolling virtues that did not exist.
“a Republican President issued the Emancipation Proclamation” — That’s history.
a Republican President issued the Emancipation Proclamation Thats history.
“Robert Byrd was a dedicated public servant and was often credited for leading the fight to gain rights for blacks.”
That’s history too. Just like a painting, you have to look at the whole picture, when judging history, don’t you?
That was actually pretty close to the reading that constitutional scholars of the time had given.
The most noted of these was former President John Quincy Adams in his later role as a senior member of the US House of Representatives.
The key is that seceding territories were held to be in "rebellion" and "insurrection" and therefore under control of the US military.
And there were then a number of precidents establishing that in territory under the control of the US Army, slavery could be abolished at the direction of the military's commanding officer.
So, the key to the constitutionality of Lincoln's actions was the South's legal status of "insurrection" and "rebellion."
And since southern representatives and Senators had quit the Congress, they were no longer there to oppose Republicans who voted the South to be in rebellion.
Well stated. BTW, not all southern congressmen went with the Confederacy. Aside from the border states, a Senator and a Representative from Tennessee, two Representatves from Virginia and one from Louisiana remained loyal to the U.S. government.
“And there were then a number of precidents establishing that in territory under the control of the US Army, slavery could be abolished at the direction of the military’s commanding officer.”
Neat trick. Abe should have just appointed a couple of Czars. No wonder Zero is so often compared to him.
Rights are from our Creator, not from men or government.
Our government eventually RECOGNIZED the equal rights of all men (blacks included), they always had those rights as a gift from their Creator, they previously lived under a government that didn't recognize their natural rights.
As far as Lincoln, I think Reagan is the closest parallel in our lifetime.
"Whoever would understand in his heart the meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln." -Ronald Reagan
The US Constitution says nothing about "Czars."
It does speak several times about insurrections and rebellion.
Lincoln appointed no "Czars," and with the South gone, the Republican controlled Congress went along with everything he did.
One reason I love these debates, as frustrating as they often get, is that it always seems I learn stuff I didn't know before. Thanks!
If we don’t speak the truth, dems fill the silence with lies.
“Lincoln appointed no “Czars,” and with the South gone, the Republican controlled Congress went along with everything he did.”
Exactly my point. When you decide to make shit up, you can make up whatever you want. Instead of trusting the people to do the right thing in their own time, stick it up their rear ends and tell them it’s for their own good.
“They never would have done it.”
Sounds like Zero ... we need to do it now!
Until someone stops you or is so outraged they will die trying. That is what makes the struggle noble.
And why the decidedly one-sided presentation of history here is so amusing.
PC standards of the day excuse Lincoln and the slave holder Grant, but do not excuse the South.
Robert Byrd was a Klansman but became a Black loving Democrat. Byrd was a bastard, Grant was a Saint. (I can hear it now...”but Grant only owned just ONE slave”).
Go figure. Grant was a bastard, but he was OUR bastard, that is what it sounds like. Abe was a black hating deportationist bastard, but he was OUR bastard, because the Yankees were getting KIA about 3 or 4 to one in the beginning of the war and Abe miraculously saw the light and changed his big old heart after a couple of years. He is excused.
The South wasn’t there to fight back legally, so the North just did what they wanted, is what you are saying. All legal like. Cripes. No one wants to call a spade a hoe.
In the process, the Grand Old Potty morphed into this monster that we now have to paper train just to be able to stomach pulling the lever for them, Demoncrats have become Socialists and nearly brought down the Republic with the aid of a bedwetting GOP and everyone is focused on what may or may not have happened and who may or may not have been considered legally acting more than a hundred years ago.
This pathetic pandering to the new “Southern Strategy” sickens us all and should be stopped. It is divisive, stupid and more importantly a GOP invention of Mikie Steele and his merry gang of idiots.
Please ... if I was black I would stay so far away from these morons that want to trade the old liars for the new liars that I wouldn’t be in hailing distance. I thought we were supposed to be all about truth now?
This war, to quote Hedley Lamarr, was about power and a land snatch. See snatch.
“If we dont speak the truth, dems fill the silence with lies.”
Speak the truth then. Abe loathed blacks and wanted to send them back to Africa. Grant was a slave owner. The war was about power. Stop looking like petulant children and deal with it straight up. Neither party is what it was, we don’t need to pretend to be - the history is there to contradict us. Republicans, if they come to their senses, are the best of the two mainstream party choices if you want small(er) government. But they aren’t much better than Moderate Democrats. The left is an evil that needs to be destroyed. Period.
Conservatives are our only real hope to recover. Period. Who gives a crap what the Grand Old Potty was up to a hundred and fifty years ago? Focus on today, and do it with clear eyes and no bullshit. That’s what will win us converts.
Lincoln would have simply had them arrested, but those same Constitutional scholars probably would have found that to be okay as well.
Democrat trolls, too, fill the silence with lies. That’s why I try to educate Republicans about the heritage of our Grand Old Party.
|[Although very late in the war Lee wanted freedom offered to any of the slaves who would agree to fight for the Confederacy, practically no one was stupid enough to fall for that. In any case, Lee was definitely not fighting to end slavery, instead writing that black folks are better off in bondage than they were free in Africa, and regardless, slavery will be around until Providence decides, and who are we to second guess that? And the only reason the masters beat their slaves is because of the abolitionists.]
Robert E. Lee letter -- "...There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master..."
|December 27, 1856|
|Platform of the Alabama Democracy -- the first Dixiecrats wanted to be able to expand slavery into the territories. It was precisely the issue of slavery that drove secession -- and talk about "sovereignty" pertained to restrictions on slavery's expansion into the territories.||January 1860|
|Abraham Lincoln nominated by Republican Party||May 18, 1860|
|Abraham Lincoln elected||November 6, 1860|
|Robert Toombs, Speech to the Georgia Legislature -- "...In 1790 we had less than eight hundred thousand slaves. Under our mild and humane administration of the system they have increased above four millions. The country has expanded to meet this growing want, and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, have received this increasing tide of African labor; before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to eleven millions of persons. What shall be done with them? We must expand or perish. We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination. Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slavetrade, are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. All just reasoning, all past history, condemn the fallacy. The North understand it better - they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits - surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death."||November 13, 1860|
|Alexander H. Stephens -- "...The first question that presents itself is, shall the people of Georgia secede from the Union in consequence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency of the United States? My countrymen, I tell you frankly, candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think that they ought. In my judgment, the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause to justify any State to separate from the Union. It ought to stand by and aid still in maintaining the Constitution of the country. To make a point of resistance to the Government, to withdraw from it because any man has been elected, would put us in the wrong. We are pledged to maintain the Constitution."||November 14, 1860|
|South Carolina||December 20, 1860|
|Mississippi||January 9, 1861|
|Florida||January 10, 1861|
|Alabama||January 11, 1861|
|Georgia||January 19, 1861|
|Louisiana||January 26, 1861|
|Texas||February 23, 1861|
|Abraham Lincoln sworn in as
President of the United States
|March 4, 1861|
|Arizona territory||March 16, 1861|
|CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, Cornerstone speech -- "...last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact."||March 21, 1861|
|Virginia||adopted April 17,1861
ratified by voters May 23, 1861
|Arkansas||May 6, 1861|
|North Carolina||May 20, 1861|
|Tennessee||adopted May 6, 1861
ratified June 8, 1861
|West Virginia declares for the Union||June 19, 1861|
|Missouri||October 31, 1861|
|"Convention of the People of Kentucky"||November 20, 1861|
In addition to the southern congressmen who went with the rebels, a northern senator was expelled for sympathizing with the Confederates.
How could the rebels and the neo-Confederates justify a territory such as Arizona, not a state, seceding? By what supposed constitutional right?
It’s important - thanks.
"For two years, it's fair to say, the South had the best of the war -- with better generals and more highly motivated troops, they were often able to overcome disadvantages in numbers and materials."
Sorry for the "mental typo."
Fort Sumter was 1861 of course, not 1860.
Antietam / Sharpsburg in 1862 is sometimes, but not always, called a Union victory.
But the tide of war did not definitely turn against the South until Gettysburg and Vicksburg in 1863.
Point being, the South did reasonably well for two years, then delayed defeat for another two years, despite being outnumbered in every category of men & equipment.
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation after Antietam in 1862 helped the Union side, but did not change the course or outcome of the war.
Nor did it fully free all slaves.
That didn't happen until after Lincoln's death -- 13th (1865), 14th (1868) and 15th (1870) Amendments.
Indeed, even 100 years later there was unfinished work to be done.
If you like Biblical analogies -- Lincoln was a Moses bringing the slaves out of Egypt, but could not lead them to the promised land.
That took a lot longer.
Actually he did. The authority behind the Emancipation Proclamation came from the several Confiscation Acts that had been passed by Congress. These acts gave the government the authority to seize private property without compensation if that property was being used to further the rebellion. Hence the reason why the act applied only to slaves still in territory under the control of the rebels. The constitutionality of the Confiscation Acts has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
BenLurkin: "Lincoln would have simply had them arrested, but those same Constitutional scholars probably would have found that to be okay as well. "
Were any of the Southern Congressmen and Senators who remained arrested?
Defenders of the Southern Cause constantly complain that secession was both constitutional and legal.
But in 1861 both the President and Congress disagreed -- and why should they not disagree?
Lincoln argued at the time that entering and leaving the Union should require the same basic procedures -- application by the state and approval by Congress.
Since nothing like that happened, the President and Congress declared seceding states to be in a state of insurrection and rebellion.
And the key point is: when the South left Congress, they left no one there to defend their interests.
How then can they complain about the results?
Oh please. So in your world blacks were better off as slaves in Alabama than as free men and women in Liberia?
I don't think to say that's fair at all, because you're only looking at the eastern campaigns. In the first two years of the war the Union had captured New Orleans, the confederacy's largest city, cut the country in half along the Mississippi, driven them from Kentucky and most of Tennessee and large parts of Louisiana, and had an effective blockade in place. They had beaten the rebel armies at Shiloh and Iuka and Stone's River, captured one rebel army at Fort Donelson and would soon capture a second at Vicksburg. The South was losing the war from the very beginning.
What kind of "excuse" are you looking for?
Lincoln and Grant lead the war to preserve the Union and free the slaves -- and most people today think that was a good thing, despite whatever other flaws Lincoln or Grant might have.
The South fought to destroy the Union and preserve slavery -- and most people today think that was a bad thing, despite whatever other virtues the Southern Cause might have.
Defenders of the Southern Cause also like to claim that Abraham Lincoln was really Barrack Hussein Obama in disguise, with his huge, bloated, all-controlling, all-consuming Federal Government choking the economic and cultural life out of America.
Well, that's just fantasy.
The post-war Federal Government of Lincoln and his Republican successors was circa 10% the size it is today.
So they are not to blame for our current plight -- Progressives and liberal Democrats are.
Among the most liberal and progressive of them all, of course, was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who won the states of the Old Confederacy by margins of 80% and 90%.
So, yes, I blame the South as much as anyone else for the long-term march of socialism in America.
Of course they were, but there were plenty of Southern victories to point to, and I doubt if most southerners believed they were losing the war until after Gettysburg and Vicksburg, in 1863 -- if even then.
And the larger point I've tried to make here is that conflict actually began, not as a "war of Northern Aggression" but rather a "war of Southern Aggression" against the Union -- which included many seizures of Federal property and Southern invasions of Union states and territories.
If I remember right, one of the last of these invasions was the Early / McCausland burning of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania in July 1864.
Point is, the South launched many operations against the Union, and these did not end until the war was nearly over.
The Union took years to get geared-up, ramped-up, trained, equipped and effectively led to victory.
In the mean time, the South enjoyed some periods of relative success.
A misunderstanding on my part then. When you said that for two years the South had the best of the war I thought you were saying that they were winning.
Jeff Davis would have had them shot...then arrested...then hung...and then maybe tried.
I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves.
The point the Republican party wanted to stress was to oppose making slave States out of the newly acquired territory, not abolishing slavery as it then existed.
Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois
The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general -- not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man -- although that was not the motive of the war -- as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle -- but only of degree -- between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree. If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them. Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this -- that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called "peace." Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people.
a Republican President issued the Emancipation Proclamation
He also wanted to send them to Liberia.
And in attempting to do so you always manage to attack the heritage of the last solid Republican voting block in the country: The South.
In addition, I see that you pinged your South hating buddies to join you in another round of Reb bashing.
If the Republican Party becomes infested with your ilk, you're gonna lose the South. Trust me on this. We don't like yankees of any stripe looking down their bulbous noses at us.
It is a misstatement that the pretext for Arizona's secession was the interruption of the U.S. postal service. Here is the quote from their March 16, 1861, secession document:
RESOLVED, That the recent enactment of the Federal Congress, removing the mail service from the Atlantic to the Pacific States from the Southern to the Central or Northern route, is another powerful reason for us to ask the Southern Confederate States of America for a continuation of the postal service over the Butterfield or El Paso route, at the earliest period.
That statement simply cites a reason to ask the CSA to provide the postal service since the route goes through the CSA. That they could do without seceding. The reasons for seceding were more what you put at the first part of your excerpt. Here is the first part of the document:
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 people; and 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; and WHEREAS, it is an inherent, inalienable right in all people to modify, alter, or abolish their form of government whenever it fails in the legitimate objects of its institution, or when it is subversive thereof; and WHEREAS, in a government of federated, sovereign States, each State has a right to withdraw from the confederacy whenever the treaty by which the league is formed, is broken; and WHEREAS, the Territories belonging to said league in common should be divided when the league is broken, and should be attached to the separating States according to their geographical position and political identity; and WHEREAS, Arizona naturally belongs to the Confederate States of America (who have rightfully and lawfully withdrawn from said league), both geographically and politically, by ties of a common interest and a common cause; and WHEREAS we, the citizens of that part of New Mexico called Arizona, in the present distracted state of political affairs between the North and the South, deem it our duty as citizens of the United States to make known our opinions and intentions; therefore be it...
If you'll remember, I mentioned to you before that Arizona had also seceded on February 3, 1861, more than a month before the document you cite. In their February 3 secession document [Source: Austin, Texas State Gazette of February 23, 1861] they do not mention the postal service issue. Thus, it is hard to see that the interruption of postal service was the pretext for their secession, since they had already seceded without mentioning it. The first secession document was issued before the formation of the CSA when they wanted to be attached to the Republic of Texas should Texas secede; the second was issued after the formation of the CSA.
The secession of a territory is not unlike the statement of a child saying which parent he wants to live with after a divorce.
You left a couple of steps out after that hanging part, so let's get it straight: he'da shot em, hung em, then burned em! Then, when they were good and crispy, he woulda cut em down and fed them into a wood chipper! Then he woulda raked up the chips and fed em to the hawgs where they would eventually return to their former selves: shit piles! Damn yankee sympathizers...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.