Free Republic

Greetings from Boston

Some of my Northern compatriots are beginning to expand, expound and excrete logical misrepresentations here

My apologies for the composition error.

I typed it this way in the initial post:

“Apologies in advance for any that are offended by the truth of this email”.

By the “truth”, I meant the fact that someone would think this and be willing to openly post in another forum.

And thanks to those who took it easy on the zot button.

Plus, thanks for the very interesting comments.

This from a college professor of advanced degrees that taught at the university level. Apologies in advance for any that are offended by the truth of this email.

“Ah, yes.... as if there were any “property” other than slaves in play.”

After admission into the Union, Texas experienced bloody Indian raids and some excursions into Texas by Mexican bandits. Although maintaining some troops on Texas soil, many in the state complained that the willingness of the administrations in Washington to protect their lands and properties was too weak. Practically the entire population was angered by the failure of the government to offer them the same protections as other states.

That is what they were describing.

You are still quoting the secession announcements, and you used a comment from Mississippi to try to prove your point, but regardless, you remain incorrect in your assertions.

Here is the official document, which says nothing about that to which you referred:

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of Mississippi and other States united with her under the compact entitled “The Constitution of the United States of America.”

The people of the State of Mississippi, in convention assembled, do ordain and declare, and it is hereby ordained and declared, as follows, to wit:

Section 1. That all the laws and ordinances by which the said State of Mississippi became a member of the Federal Union of the United States of America be, and the same are hereby, repealed, and that all obligations on the part of the said State or the people thereof to observe the same be withdrawn, and that the said State doth hereby resume all the rights, functions, and powers which by any of said laws or ordinances were conveyed to the Government of the said United States, and is absolved from all the obligations, restraints, and duties incurred to the said Federal Union, and shall from henceforth be a free, sovereign, and independent State.

Sec. 2. That so much of the first section of the seventh article of the constitution of this State as requires members of the Legislature and all officers, executive and judicial, to take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States be, and the same is hereby, abrogated and annulled.

Sec. 3. That all rights acquired and vested under the Constitution of the United States, or under any act of Congress passed, or treaty made, in pursuance thereof, or under any law of this State, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in force and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed.

Sec. 4. That the people of the State of Mississippi hereby consent to form a federal union with such of the States as may have seceded or may secede from the Union of the United States of America, upon the basis of the present Constitution of the said United States, except such parts thereof as embrace other portions than such seceding States.

Thus ordained and declared in convention the 9th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1861.

Source: Official Records, Ser. IV, vol. 1, p. 42.

“Stop trying to deny what’s true, DM.”

You make a reference to a geographic adjective, and not a cause.

You should read with a little less bias.

I said: “With regard to the official documents of secession, none of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union.”

You said: “That’s about as blatantly wrong as it is possible to be.”

Here are the official documents. Show me where they mention slavery as a cause of secession.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040404171724/http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/ordnces.html#South Carolina

Here is the document to which you refer: (You said: “As an example, Texas held a state-wide referendum on their Declaration of Secession. It was an up or down vote; the votes came in overwhelmingly up, and Texas seceded.”
It was obviously far more than “the opinion of the authors.”

It looks like it was obvious to anyone except to you that that was not the point.

I stated that, “With regard to the official documents of secession, none of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union.”

Your response: “That's about as blatantly wrong as it is possible to be.”

Well, let's see if the official Texas secession document mentions slavery as a reason for secession, as you contend....

TEXAS............ AN ORDINANCE

To dissolve the Union between the State of Texas and the other States united under the Compact styled “the Constitution of the United States of America.”

WHEREAS, The Federal Government has failed to accomplish the purposes of the compact of union between these States, in giving protection either to the persons of our people upon an exposed frontier, or to the property of our citizens, and

WHEREAS, the action of the Northern States of the Union is violative of the compact between the States and the guarantees of the Constitution; and,

WHEREAS, The recent developments in Federal affairs make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression; THEREFORE,

SECTION 1.— We, the people of the State of Texas, by delegates in convention assembled, do declare and ordain that the ordinance adopted by our convention of delegates on the 4th day of July, A.D. 1845, and afterwards ratified by us, under which the Republic of Texas was admitted into the Union with other States, and became a party to the compact styled “The Constitution of the United States of America,” be, and is hereby, repealed and annulled; that all the powers which, by the said compact, were delegated by Texas to the Federal Government are revoked and resumed; that Texas is of right absolved from all restraints and obligations incurred by said compact, and is a separate sovereign State, and that her citizens and people are absolved from all allegiance to the United States or the government thereof.

SEC. 2. 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.

Done by the people of the State of Texas, in convention assembled, at Austin, this 1st day of February, A.D. 1861.

[Ratified Feb. 23, 1861 by a vote of 46,153 for and 14,747 against]

So as you can see, it is you that is blatantly wrong.

What you think the ordinances said, they do not. It is you that seems to be beyond reason.

Greetings from Boston

Pardon the delay in responding to you.

The documents to which you refer were perhaps historical in some fashion, but were not official statements of purpose. They represented the opinion of their authors only.

As stated, which is factual and with specificity, there were a total of 11 state legislatures or conventions, that published official secession documents around the beginning of the war.

If taken altogether, these 11 were ordinances officiating the secession act itself adopted by the 11 state conventions, legislatures, or popular referendum. .

With regard to the official documents of secession, none of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union.

Continuing this line of conversation is merely going to frustrate you, because for about 150 years, historians have searched for some "official" cause of secession..........without success.

Greetings from Boston

Pardon the delay in responding to you.

The documents to which you refer were perhaps historical in some fashion, but were not official statements of purpose. They represented the opinion of their authors only.

As stated, which is factual and with specificity, there were a total of 11 state legislatures or conventions, that published official secession documents around the beginning of the war.

If taken altogether, these 11 were ordinances officiating the secession act itself adopted by the 11 state conventions, legislatures, or popular referendum. .

With regard to the official documents of secession, none of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union.

Continuing this line of conversation is merely going to frustrate you, because for about 150 years, historians have searched for some "official" cause of secession..........without success.

Greetings from Boston.

The delay was beyond my control.

Greetings from Boston

Pardon the delay in responding to your post.

Analogy is the refuge of a depleted argument. Pacific war conditions involving a militarily hostile foreign country capable of inflicting mortal damage to its enemies almost 80 years in separation do not reflect the conditions in Lincoln's cabinet in 1861; therefore the Japanese comparison is unfit for discussion on this thread.

"Under international law of the era, declaration of a blockade is an act of war...

Correct. And that is the basis for the Federal Court ruling that many on different forums here have cited you in the past. But you continue to mimic considered responses by using circular logic instead of accepting the fact of the court ruling.

Your arguments about relevance do not change the fact that Lincoln's action in April of 1861 was the war’s Official beginning.

In my opinion, the “progressives” began their rise to national power seats in the 1820s and within 40 years transformed the republic into an oligarchy.

These were the people that pushed to establish the national banking system, maritime laws that eliminated offshore shipping competition, the increased tariff system, and advocated federal financing of roads, canals, ports, and railroads.

Once these people gained power, the government was transformed to operationally serve the powerful, particularly in the Northeastern states.

When Lincoln came to power, and the secession served to totally disrupt the financial underpinning of their government, the “progressives” transferred their states’ financial resources and militias to Lincoln's control.

He then initiated a war to protect the “progressives” who now had formed a class of oligarchs that came to rule the country.