The Heritage of The South: A History of the Introduction of Slavery; Its Establishment From Colonial Times and Final Effect Upon the Politics of the United StatesEarly, Jubal Anderson
History
The Heritage of The South: A History of the Introduction of Slavery; Its Establishment From Colonial Times and Final Effect Upon the Politics of the United States
Early, Jubal Anderson
Slavery -- United States; United States -- Politics and government -- 1861-1865
North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas likewise withdrew from the
Union and became members of the Confederacy for the same reasons which
influenced Virginia. Missouri subsequently passed an ordinance of
secession and joined the Confederacy, but that state was soon overrun
by United States troops, and the regular government was subverted and
another substituted in its place by the force of Federal bayonets.
Kentucky undertook to occupy a neutral position until the greater part
of that state was in the power of the Federal troops, when an irregular
government was formed which passed an ordinance of secession and joined
the Confederacy. The situation of Maryland was such that she was soon
overrun by troops and prevented any legislative expression of opinion, the
members of her legislature being seized and imprisoned. Little Delaware
was so situated that its voice was never heard at all.
CHAPTER VI
=The Right to Withdraw=
The causes which led to the secession of the Southern States have never
been given, and when they are compared with those which led to the
American Revolution as given by the First Continental Congress, the latter
sink into comparative insignificance. A large portion of the wrongs
complained of in the Declaration of Independence were acts committed after
the commencement of the collisions between the British troops and the
Colonists, and if these were compared with those committed by the Federal
troops in the beginning of the war, in Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, to
say nothing of the long list of outrages perpetrated during its progress,
the indictment against King George contained in the eloquent language of
the Declaration of Independence, would be a very tame affair in comparison
with that which could be preferred against the Government at Washington.
The third article of the Confederation had specified the object for which
it had been formed, and that it was "A firm league of friendship" for
the common defence, the security of the liberties and the mutual and
general welfare, and that the states bound themselves to assist each
other against all force offered to or attacks made upon them or any of
them "on account of religion, sovereignty, trade or any other pretense
whatever." The preamble to the Constitution recites that it was made "to
form a more perfect union." More perfect how? To the subversion of the
liberties and sovereignty of the states? Had the conduct of the Northern
States been that of the members of "a firm league and friendship?" And
when they had so flagrantly violated and neglected the plain stipulations
of the Constitution, did not the Southern States have the same right to
withdraw from the connection with them, that the colonies had to withdraw
from the connection with Great Britain, because the government which had
been instituted for "the common defence and general welfare" had become
"destructive of those ends?"
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account