Arizona Ordinance of Secession...

Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,924
Location
Central Florida
#1
You know Arizona secede from the union too... but it was not about slavery directly... maybe states rights? well, future state?

Are some snippets...

Since 1856, settlers in southern New Mexico Territory had sought to split off and organize their own territorial government. Their aspiration got caught up in the growing sectional tensions of the late 1850s and the belief in the U.S. Congress that the impetus to divide New Mexico Territory into two separate northern and southern territories was that the settlers hoped to expand slavery into the southern portion.

The Ordinance of Secession, creating the Arizona Territory and announcing its intention to join the Confederacy, passed in a convention in Mesilla on March 16, 1861, and a second convention at Tucson on March 28, 1861.

Unique among the secession justifications, slavery was not an explicit issue in this document. Despite a statement complaining of the rise of the Republican party in the North and how it “has disregarded the Constitution of the United States, violated the rights of the Southern States, and heaped wrongs and indignities upon their people,” the Arizona Ordinance of Secession never once mentioned the word “slave” or its variations and its specific reasons for secession instead reflect the problems of settlers in a region in which the American imprint was growing but still limited.

Yet except for language expressing solidarity with the slave states, the specific grievances of the Arizona Ordinance of Secession instead reflected the complaints of frontier settlers–not slaveholders. Congress recently had halted mail service along the stage line linking southern New Mexico territory with the rest of the country. The Arizona Ordinance stated, “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.” The settlers also were angry at the failure of federal troops to halt Apache Indian raids directed at them. The Ordinance exclaimed, “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

https://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/sometimes-the-civilwar-wasnt-about-slavery/



 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,293
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#3
You know Arizona secede from the union too... but it was not about slavery directly... maybe states rights? well, future state?

Are some snippets...

Since 1856, settlers in southern New Mexico Territory had sought to split off and organize their own territorial government. Their aspiration got caught up in the growing sectional tensions of the late 1850s and the belief in the U.S. Congress that the impetus to divide New Mexico Territory into two separate northern and southern territories was that the settlers hoped to expand slavery into the southern portion.

The Ordinance of Secession, creating the Arizona Territory and announcing its intention to join the Confederacy, passed in a convention in Mesilla on March 16, 1861, and a second convention at Tucson on March 28, 1861.

Unique among the secession justifications, slavery was not an explicit issue in this document. Despite a statement complaining of the rise of the Republican party in the North and how it “has disregarded the Constitution of the United States, violated the rights of the Southern States, and heaped wrongs and indignities upon their people,” the Arizona Ordinance of Secession never once mentioned the word “slave” or its variations and its specific reasons for secession instead reflect the problems of settlers in a region in which the American imprint was growing but still limited.

Yet except for language expressing solidarity with the slave states, the specific grievances of the Arizona Ordinance of Secession instead reflected the complaints of frontier settlers–not slaveholders. Congress recently had halted mail service along the stage line linking southern New Mexico territory with the rest of the country. The Arizona Ordinance stated, “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.” The settlers also were angry at the failure of federal troops to halt Apache Indian raids directed at them. The Ordinance exclaimed, “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

https://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/sometimes-the-civilwar-wasnt-about-slavery/
Interesting.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,836
Location
los angeles ca
#4
You know Arizona secede from the union too... but it was not about slavery directly... maybe states rights? well, future state?

Are some snippets...

Since 1856, settlers in southern New Mexico Territory had sought to split off and organize their own territorial government. Their aspiration got caught up in the growing sectional tensions of the late 1850s and the belief in the U.S. Congress that the impetus to divide New Mexico Territory into two separate northern and southern territories was that the settlers hoped to expand slavery into the southern portion.

The Ordinance of Secession, creating the Arizona Territory and announcing its intention to join the Confederacy, passed in a convention in Mesilla on March 16, 1861, and a second convention at Tucson on March 28, 1861.

Unique among the secession justifications, slavery was not an explicit issue in this document. Despite a statement complaining of the rise of the Republican party in the North and how it “has disregarded the Constitution of the United States, violated the rights of the Southern States, and heaped wrongs and indignities upon their people,” the Arizona Ordinance of Secession never once mentioned the word “slave” or its variations and its specific reasons for secession instead reflect the problems of settlers in a region in which the American imprint was growing but still limited.

Yet except for language expressing solidarity with the slave states, the specific grievances of the Arizona Ordinance of Secession instead reflected the complaints of frontier settlers–not slaveholders. Congress recently had halted mail service along the stage line linking southern New Mexico territory with the rest of the country. The Arizona Ordinance stated, “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.” The settlers also were angry at the failure of federal troops to halt Apache Indian raids directed at them. The Ordinance exclaimed, “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

https://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/sometimes-the-civilwar-wasnt-about-slavery/
The problem for the Arizona secessionists is with what army are they going to use to gain Secession? After the Confederate debacle at Glorieta Pass their simply is no way that the Confederate Army is going to liberate the Southwest. California has much more people and other then the 86 men if the Los Angeles Mounted Rifles who left for Texas early in the war there's just no hope for the Secessionists. Ordinances of Secession are great but they need some muscle behind them.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,100
#6
Slavery in Az. would be a moot point, after its secession. All one has to do is read the Confederate Constitution about any new states or territories.

Almost all Ante-Bellum Americans, interested in American history or politics, knew exactly, what 'State Rights' referred to.

Classic example of of the old saying that 'All Politics is Local' .
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,293
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#7
Slavery in Az. would be a moot point, after its secession. All one has to do is read the Confederate Constitution about any new states or territories.

Almost all Ante-Bellum Americans, interested in American history or politics, knew exactly, what 'State Rights' referred to.

Classic example of of the old saying that 'All Politics is Local' .
1553963645584.png
 

5fish

Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,924
Location
Central Florida
#8
here is an interesting take on Arizona 's secession... If you think about it Arizona, in the end, achieved their goals... a thought?

Capture of Tucson (1862) - Wikipedia

When Captain Hunter arrived in Mesilla on May 27, his company, along with the Arizona Rangers and the Arizona Guards, were formed into Lieutenant Colonel Philemon Herbert's battalion of Arizona Cavalry. The Arizonans ceased being militia and officially became Confederate soldiers under General Henry Sibley. After the Battle of Glorieta Pass and the retreat of General Sibley's army, the Arizona Cavalry battalion was ordered to remain behind to hold on to Mesilla and the surrounding valley. Men under Sherod Hunter fought with New Mexican militia near Mesilla on June 1, 1862. The skirmish ended with no known casualties on either side and reports indicate a Union victory due to the loss of Confederate horses and equipment at the battle, the rebels retreated from Mesilla a few days later.

When the Arizona Cavalry withdrew into Texas they were some of the last Confederate soldiers to leave Confederate Arizona. Though the Confederates, due to lack of man power, failed to hold Arizona, the Arizonans themselves achieved their main goal: the creation of a territory separate from that of New Mexico Territory. As mentioned previously, the United States established Arizona Territory with Tucson as the capital in 1863, using a north-south boundary. The towns of Mesilla, Pinos Altos and others were not included in the new Arizona Territory, instead they remained part of New Mexico Territory and are now within the present day state of New Mexico. The Confederate occupation of Arizona prompted a return of Union forces to the region in order to reassert Federal government control, thus providing Arizona the military support necessary for protection against Apaches. Indeed, the California Volunteers remained on guard in Arizona until relieved by the Regular Army of the United States in the spring of 1866, making them the last volunteer forces to be mustered out of Federal service in the American Civil War.

Some engagements in Arizona I doubt few know... should be able to click on them as links...

Like most of the Civil War era engagements in Arizona (Dragoon Springs, Stanwix Station and Apache Pass) Picacho Pass occurred near remount stations along the former Butterfield Overland Stagecoach route, which opened in 1859 and ceased operations when the war began. This skirmish occurred about a mile northwest of Picacho Pass Station. The Battle of Picacho Pass,...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Messages
12,885
Location
Mississippi
#11
The Arizona Territory left largely because the Federal army had left for back east, leaving settlers to the whims of the Apache, that and Texas was right next door, so it was the logical choice to join the CSA with no Federal support and close proximity to El Paso.
The Arizona settlers were very pragmatic.
 

Desert Kid

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
2,018
Location
Arizona
#12
The Arizona settlers were very pragmatic.
The towns that made up the territory were as follows:

Mesilla (modern Las Cruces, NM)
Pinos Altos (modern Silver City, NM)
Mowry City (modern Deming, NM)
Apache Pass (modern Bowie, AZ)
Camp Goodwin (modern Fort Thomas, AZ. My dad's family was already there at the time)
Fort Breckinridge (modern Fort Grant, AZ)
Tucson, AZ
Tubac, AZ
Gila City, AZ (modern Yuma, AZ)

Needless to say, when the Federals left, the Apaches came out to play.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,924
Location
Central Florida
#15
Here is an act a Law that shows Lincoln was no anti-slavery President the Arizona Organic Act of 1863... it was passed and signed by Lincoln after the Emancipation Proclamation had been signed by Lincoln... Did you see why slavery was not abolished completely because of silver... So where is the Emancipator?

From wiki...

The Arizona Organic Act was an organic act passed in the United States federal law introduced as H.R. 357 in the second session of the 37th U.S. Congress on March 12, 1862, by Rep. James M. Ashley of Ohio. The Act provided for the creation of the Arizona Territory by the division of the New Mexico Territory into two territories, along the current boundary between New Mexico and Arizona. On February 24, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed the bill once it had been approved by Congress. The bill established a provisional government for the new territory. It abolished slavery in the new Arizona Territory, but did not abolish it in the portion that remained the New Mexico Territory. During the 1850s, Congress had resisted a demand for Arizona statehood because of a well-grounded fear that it would become a slave state.

According to Marshall Trimble, the official historian of Arizona, the Arizona Organic Act can be traced to the Northwest Ordinance. Business people from Ohio had silver mining interests in the Arizona Territory, and they took their request for Arizona territorial status to Congress. The U.S. Civil War was occurring at the time, and the Union needed silver, which Trimble explains as being one of the main reasons for passage of the Act.[1]

The New Mexico Territory had a long history of enslavement of Native American people, first by each other and later by Hispanic settlers (cf. Genízaros). Although in 1860 there were relatively few African American slaves in New Mexico, the legislature formally approved of slavery shortly before the Civil War.

During the war, the Confederate States of America established an entity called the Arizona Territory, which had different boundaries from modern Arizona. According to historian Martin Hardwick Hall, invading Confederate troops brought an unknown number of enslaved African Americans into the territory. Historian Donald S. Frazier estimates there were as many as fifty black slaves brought by Confederate officials and troops, in his book Blood & Treasure: Confederate Empire in the Southwest.


It points outs Lincoln was not anti-slavery at his core...
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
354
Location
Pittsburgh
#16
You know Arizona secede from the union too... but it was not about slavery directly... maybe states rights? well, future state?

Are some snippets...

Since 1856, settlers in southern New Mexico Territory had sought to split off and organize their own territorial government. Their aspiration got caught up in the growing sectional tensions of the late 1850s and the belief in the U.S. Congress that the impetus to divide New Mexico Territory into two separate northern and southern territories was that the settlers hoped to expand slavery into the southern portion.

The Ordinance of Secession, creating the Arizona Territory and announcing its intention to join the Confederacy, passed in a convention in Mesilla on March 16, 1861, and a second convention at Tucson on March 28, 1861.

Unique among the secession justifications, slavery was not an explicit issue in this document. Despite a statement complaining of the rise of the Republican party in the North and how it “has disregarded the Constitution of the United States, violated the rights of the Southern States, and heaped wrongs and indignities upon their people,” the Arizona Ordinance of Secession never once mentioned the word “slave” or its variations and its specific reasons for secession instead reflect the problems of settlers in a region in which the American imprint was growing but still limited.

Yet except for language expressing solidarity with the slave states, the specific grievances of the Arizona Ordinance of Secession instead reflected the complaints of frontier settlers–not slaveholders. Congress recently had halted mail service along the stage line linking southern New Mexico territory with the rest of the country. The Arizona Ordinance stated, “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.” The settlers also were angry at the failure of federal troops to halt Apache Indian raids directed at them. The Ordinance exclaimed, “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

https://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/sometimes-the-civilwar-wasnt-about-slavery/
“Unique among the secession justifications, slavery was not an explicit issue...”...

...
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,197
#17
On slavery and Lincoln: in the normal actions of the country he had no power to end slavery on his own. The Emancipation Proclamations are only justified by the rebellion of the seceding states and the war that ensued -- which is why they did not apply to Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. Lincoln might have vetoed the Arizona Organic Act of 1863, but he could not change a single word of it to eliminate slavery.
 

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top