Alabama secedes 153 years ago today.

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
1601348_345270022281191_361385268_n.jpg


Alabama secession flag.
 
From the Alabama secession convention:

"It is useless to disguise the fact, that in some portions of the State there is disapprobation towards our action; and, I venture to tell the gentleman from Tuscaloosa, that when that Ordinance shall be passed, even if it be by the meagre majority of one, it will represent the fullness, and the power, and the majesty of the sovereign people of Alabama. When it shall be the supreme organic law of the people of Alabama, the State upon that question will know no majority or minority among her people, but will expect and demand, and secure unlimited and unquestioned obedience to that Ordinance... Men, who shall, after the passage of this Ordinance, dissolving the union of Alabama with the other States of this Confederacy, dare array themselves against the State, will then become the enemies of the State. There is a law of Treason, defining treason against the State; and, those who shall dare oppose the action of Alabama, when she assumes her independence of the Union, will become traitors--rebels against its authority, and will be dealt with as such."

- William L. Yancey, the "father of secession", January 9, 1861

Source: http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/smithwr/smith.html
 
Your opinion noted. Those in the South thought different.

According to William L. Yancey, in the post you liked above, a lot of people in the South agreed with Unionblue, but they were to be "dealt with as" "traitors".
 
According to William L. Yancey, in the post you liked above, a lot of people in the South agreed with Unionblue, but they were to be "dealt with as" "traitors".

But certainly not on the scale or the severity that the Lincoln regime dealt with their “traitors.” For a real eye opener read William B. Hesseltine’s “Lincoln and the War Governors”.
 
But certainly not on the scale or the severity that the Lincoln regime dealt with their “traitors.” For a real eye opener read William B. Hesseltine’s “Lincoln and the War Governors”.

How did I just know that one of you guys would avoid facing the music by changing the topic? Probably because it happens over and over again. Lincoln was in an entirely different situation, and has been dealt with on multiple threads.

I'm talking here about the hypocrisy of the Alabama secession convention claiming to secede to protect minority rights, at the exact same time they were saying that they would now treat their own minorities as "traitors". And not even submitting the matter to a popular referendum to be absolutely sure that their "minority" wasn't in fact a "majority".

But since you have no response to that other than to talk about Lincoln, I'll take it that you agree with me.
 
How did I just know that one of you guys would avoid facing the music by changing the topic?

No change, as you say. Just sim[le comparision!

Probably because it happens over and over again.

And you didn't change the topic?

Lincoln was in an entirely different situation, and has been dealt with on multiple threads.

Oh, how did I know this was going to be done? Change the topic? again!

I'm talking here about the hypocrisy of the Alabama secession convention claiming to secede to protect minority rights, at the exact same time they were saying that they would now treat their own minorities as "traitors". And not even submitting the matter to a popular referendum to be absolutely sure that their "minority" wasn't in fact a "majority".

But since you have no response to that other than to talk about Lincoln, I'll take it that you agree with me.

The rest is just bull excrement!! I guess some can and others can't which is par for the course.
 
Your opinion noted. Those in the South thought different.
The South payed dearly for thinking they could get away with it. Leaves their descendants, (and everyone else) wondering if it was worth the trouble. It played out on the field of battle, and was decided on that field.

Kevin Dally
 
Your opinion noted. Those in the South thought different.

Rebforever,

This is not my opinion.

My words simply recognize history.

It is not my opinion that makes up the words of Alabama's secession ordinance and declaration.

It is the leaders of Alabama of the time that speak loud and clear about what they are involving the citizens of their state in and for.

One just has to read the words and recognize what they say and mean.

No more, no less.

Unionblue
 
But certainly not on the scale or the severity that the Lincoln regime dealt with their “traitors.” For a real eye opener read William B. Hesseltine’s “Lincoln and the War Governors”.

No, for once, let's stay with the topic of a thread and discuss Alabama's secession and why they did such.

For once, let us let them speak for themselves as to why they seceded.

Unionblue
 
How did I just know that one of you guys would avoid facing the music by changing the topic? Probably because it happens over and over again. Lincoln was in an entirely different situation, and has been dealt with on multiple threads.

I'm talking here about the hypocrisy of the Alabama secession convention claiming to secede to protect minority rights, at the exact same time they were saying that they would now treat their own minorities as "traitors". And not even submitting the matter to a popular referendum to be absolutely sure that their "minority" wasn't in fact a "majority".

But since you have no response to that other than to talk about Lincoln, I'll take it that you agree with me.

It was you that that brought up the suppression of dissidents as traitors, not me. Surely no informed person will avow that such suppression occurred only in the Confederate States and unless you disagree and insist that it was only a Southern phenomenon, I see no reason not to discuss the topic in the totality of time and region. Since you appear unwilling discuss anything other than supposed Confederate suppression of dissident minorities maybe you agree with me. As for considering dissident minority rights, I suppose you will point out all those referenda in the North to learn the will of political dissidents (traitors) there.
 
No, for once, let's stay with the topic of a thread and discuss Alabama's secession and why they did such.

For once, let us let them speak for themselves as to why they seceded.

Unionblue

And you think Alabama seceded so the state could deal with “traitors”? See post #9.
 
It was you that that brought up the suppression of dissidents as traitors, not me. Surely no informed person will avow that such suppression occurred only in the Confederate States and unless you disagree and insist that it was only a Southern phenomenon, I see no reason not to discuss the topic in the totality of time and region. Since you appear unwilling discuss anything other than supposed Confederate suppression of dissident minorities maybe you agree with me. As for considering dissident minority rights, I suppose you will point out all those referenda in the North to learn the will of political dissidents (traitors) there.

I will gladly talk about Lincoln's handling of dissidents on a thread about Lincoln's handling of dissidents, as I have many times on this forum. But, THIS thread is about ALABAMA's secession, something that Confederate leaders like William L. Yancey precipitated, knowing full well that it would make a large part of his population "traitors", and having no problem whatsoever with that fact. Obviously though, that's all fine and good with you. No need to question it or discuss it. You won't even bother to try and defend it. Repression of civil liberties is all just peachy, as long as it was Confederate politicians doing it for their Confederate "cause".
 
Back
Top