150 Years Ago - Texas joins the CSA

on this day in history ^ | 3/1/11 | on this day

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Please give me a source for your implication that ALL of the Founding Fathers owned slaves.

[mstar]

War is hell. But you knew that.

oh yeah ... everyday. . .

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Haven’t seen a reference to the Kickapoos since the days of Al Capp and “L’il Abner” (Kickapoo Joy Juice).

[UnwashedPeasant]

"Please give me a source for your implication that ALL of the Founding Fathers owned slaves."

They didn't. Neither did all the Southerners. If all Southerners should be held in contempt for Slavery, so should all Founding Fathers. Slavery was practiced by a small minority of each group

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

As has been thoroughly established, whatever the citizens of the South thought, whatever reasons the North had for ending secession, the elite governing classes that ran the South were perfectly happy to proclaim that the primary reason for secession was to preserve and extend slavery.

[Stonewall Jackson]

The Battle of Dove Creek was an unfortunate mistake. The Kickapoo were actually neutrals in the Civil War and were trying to get down into Mexico, where other members of their tribe were living peacefully, but were mistaken for a band of Kiowa who were rampaging through Central Texas at that time.

Once the Kickapoo got to Mexico, they began launching raids across the Rio Grande that lasted until 1873, when the US 4th Cavalry Regiment launched a punitive expedition and put an end to these raids.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

In those days the US knew what to do about raids from Mexico.

[rustbucket]

... the pro-slavery Lt. Governor, who would then force Texas to join the CSA and give up its independent status during the war.

Texas joined the Confederate States of America on March 2, 1861, over a full month AFTER they had seceded from the United States.

Texas did not officially secede until the Ordinance of Secession was approved by the voters, most of whom voted on February 23. The Ordinance said that if it passed, Texas would sever its ties with the United States on March 2, 1861. Here's a link to that Ordinance: Link. The Ordinance passed overwhelmingly.

On March 2, 1861 Texas was not a member of either the US or the Confederacy. On March 5, 1861, the Secession Convention voted on another Ordinance, this one instructing the delegates from Texas to the Confederate Congress in Montgomery, Alabama to apply for admission to the Confederacy. Only two delegates voted no. Here is a link to that document: Link.

The Confederate Congress jumped the gun and on March 2, 1861, passed an act to admit Texas to the Confederacy, and Jefferson Davis signed it. But Texas did not agree to join the Confederacy until March 5.

Houston was removed from office by the secession convention for not signing the oath on March 16, 1861. Houston did not appear to take the oath and the convention recognized Lieutenant Governor Clark as governor. By then though, Texas had already joined the Confederacy. Clark did not "force" Texas to join the Confederacy.

The Texas secession convention ratified the permanent Confederate Constitution on March 23, 1861. Only two delegates voted against it.

[rustbucket]

My ancestor was from Coryell County and would have been in that 1865 battle with your ancestor, but sometime in 1864 he joined the Seventh Texas Volunteer Cavalry and went to fight Federals in Louisiana.

Close but no cigar, I guess.

[Sherman Logan]

My understanding is that Texas specifically reserved the right to secede when they joined the Union.

I've read through both the treaty, which failed to pass the Senate and so therefore has no legal standing, BTW; and the Joint Resolution by which Texas was admitted, which was itself of dubious constitutionality because it was an end run around the treaty-approving provision assigned to the Senate.

Neither one had a thing to say about future secession.

I realize a lot of people believe this, but if you're going to post such a claim, you should also post proof that it is correct.

[Sherman Logan]

It took Lincoln 2 years to declare the slaves, just the ones in the Confederate states, not the ones in Maryland or other border states, free and 3/5th of a human, if they would fight for the Union.

1. The original 3/5 Constitutional provision did not declare blacks 3/5 of a human. It had only to do with calculation of representation in the House (and therefore in the Electoral College.) It was an anti-slavery provision and accepted reluctantly by the South only as part of a compromise.

2. The 3/5 provision applied to slaves, not blacks. Freed blacks were calculated into the representation formula as "full humans" from the start of Constitutional government.

3. The EP said nothing about blacks being required to fight for the Union to gain their freedom.

Lincoln had no power to free slaves in areas not in rebellion. Doing so would require an Amendment, a process in which the president has no role. However, he had been pushing for compensated emancipation almost since taking office, and fully supported the several amendments that attempted to emancipate the slaves, which of course the 13th eventually did.

A little known fact is that the 13th freed significant numbers of slaves in only one state, KY, slaves in the other Union states having been freed by state action before the end of the war, largely due to Lincoln's support for such provisions.

What is it with you guys? How can you criticize Lincoln for ignoring the Constitution in a crisis, then turn around him and criticize him for following it?

[Idabilly]

“Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.”

Sam Houston

[Ditter]

I am in Texas too and it was the first day of the Houston Rodeo, lots of people have their hats and boots on, maybe that is what you are seeing. I did not see anyone celebrating the CSA day.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

He looks like the personification of "don't mess with Texas"

Looking at pictures of your relatives of that day makes one admire their guts and bravery that much more even if you don't necessarily think they picked the right side. My great great great uncle, HP Williams of Whitfield County Georgia and 36th Georgia Confederate Infantry:

Uncle Pitsford came from a mixed loyalty family, a couple of his brothers, including my great great grandpa, were solid unionists who helped infiltrate Union scouts through reb lines in the early part of the Sherman's Georgia campaign. Another uncle helped General Butterfield's unit pass through Taylor's Ridge to attack the rebs in spring, 1864.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

We were guaranteed freedom and limited government after we fought the revolution and we resisted a treasonous president who suspended the constitution to invade our homes...every problem we face today comes from his actions and philosophy.

Sounds like you're describing Jefferson Davis.

[Idabilly]

And I’m sure your favorite family members work at spreading the good works of General Sherman,,, at Acorn. Or was that at “NOW”?

[Colonel Kangaroo]

ACORN is carrying on the work of Jeff Davis. Democrats never change. Whether forcing others to pick your cotton under slavery or public unions pushing generous contracts, Confederates/Unionists/Democrats are all the same.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

And I doubt my reb Uncle Pitsford would approve of your maligning a family member incorrectly.

[lentulusgracchus]

[Your Wiki Source] "I deny the power of this Convention to speak for Texas....I protest....against all the acts and doings of this convention and I declare them null and void." -- Wiki

Wiki, of course, is always fair, balanced, and accurate, and never engages in selective quotation.

Did Wiki point out that the citizens of Texas voted overwhelmingly with the Convention, ratifying their proposals to the People and repudiating Sam Houston?

And of course when a politician opposes a course of action, there is NO way it can be done constitutionally, morally, or rightly and so the People must be contented with that politician's judgment as their substitute and consolation prize.

Which is Gov. Houston's expressed opinion in this case.

And did Wiki report truthfully that Gov. Houston later undercut his own defi by later refusing to certify insurrection to the entreating, ensorcelling President Lincoln, who offered him federal troops and sustenance and a return to office, if only he would give Abe what he wanted? Well, did they?

Houston refused to certify insurrection because he knew the People had decided against him, and that the People had the right to make their decision without "correction" by either him or Abraham Lincoln. Their act, however much he thought it unwise (most of his opposition stemmed from his belief that Lincoln would win his war), was neither insurrection nor rebellion, but a sovereign and therefore legal act which they had every right, as the People enthroned, to make.

[jmacusa]

Slavery ended in the North and it didn’t take a war to do it. Oh, and you still lost.