Why Did Arkansas Secede?

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
9,150
Location
Denver, CO
There are some conflicting elements, but the secessionists in Arkansas seem to be accepting the idea that the effective government is in Little Rock and Washington had no right to tell Arkansas to support the federal government. Definitely a confederation view and not a constitutional view. There seem to be few gaps in their reasoning, since Arkansas was created from federal territory, admitted by Congress and never asked for a conditional admission.
Without significant railroad connections to the rest of the United States, its not surprising that local people could accept that without too much dissent. When the gunboats and the US cavalry began to show up, Arkansans reevaluated their position.
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
9,150
Location
Denver, CO
Slavery was at issue for the wealthy, but the idea of local autonomy had traction before the development of interconnected railroads and national time zones. @leftyhunter would know better, but the idea of local autonomy was consistent with expectation of many western regiments in the Confederacy would serve in their own state. United States regiments more quickly adapted to multi-state divisions and out of state service.
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
9,150
Location
Denver, CO
Secessionists had a more fuedal view of manifest destiny, with land acquisition being the principal object. Manifest destiny may have a had different meaning in the north, with many more national institutions coming into being.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

WJC

Major General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,964
***Posted as Moderator***
This thread is intended to discuss Why Arkansas seceded. Posts that do not address that question will be edited or deleted.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
0
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
The Compact Theory states that the Constitution was a voluntary agreement among the states to create a federal government that is delegated certain powers as their agent. The states still retain their sovereignty and can withdraw from the compact if the federal government abuses the power that is delegated to it.
Assuming that is true, what is the procedure to withdraw? To know that, one needs to study compact theory and not treat the term as magic get out of the union just because card. So what and where is the procedure? Is it just because I have the itch to do it, I get to do it?
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
0
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Thanks for your response.
No, I do not. I do know that during the antebellum, compact theory was popular among those bent on dissolving the Union.
For the most part, compact theorists were concerned about protecting slavery against an encroaching Northern free labor majority in the government. Compact theory allowed Slave States to exit when threatened. However, there was a procedure involved in compact theories involving including all the States in a process and only after a time, leaving. The interesting thing is that all the compact theories I have read, do not use Constitutional law as a basis, but natural law. In any case, I see 'compact theory' tossed about as a sort of magic word.

Some threads here
Secession , FSL 1850, Breach of Contact and the Compact Theory
Discuss The Relationship Between Pro Slavery Advocates And Compact Theory.
Pre War SCOTUS cases and Compact Theory
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,607
That would predicate the 22 or so union states were incapable of existing on their own without the eleven seceded the Southern States.


The Union could probably survive secession, but, the question is, Why, exactly should they have to survive an unprovoked and illegal attack?

Letting any tom, dick or harry just waltz in and attack and rob you, is not a habit you should encourage.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
20,100
Location
Laurinburg NC
The Union could probably survive secession, but, the question is, Why, exactly should they have to survive an unprovoked and illegal attack?

Letting any tom, dick or harry just waltz in and attack and rob you, is not a habit you should encourage.
Arkansas did view the Lincoln Regime call for troops (including troops from Arkansas) to invade the seven Southern states as an "unprovoked and illegal attack."
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
0
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Arkansas did view the Lincoln Regime call for troops (including troops from Arkansas) to invade the seven Southern states as an "unprovoked and illegal attack."
Political propaganda that the Arkansas citizens seem to believe for some reason.
Perhaps a picture is enlightening.
1553705210574.png
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Greywolf

Sergeant
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
822
The Union could probably survive secession, but, the question is, Why, exactly should they have to survive an unprovoked and illegal attack?

Letting any tom, dick or harry just waltz in and attack and rob you, is not a habit you should encourage.
Ghee, I dont know, say letting cooler heads prevail and attempt to talk instead of 700k deaths when that attack didn't kill anyone. Were the yankees that hot headed, that they were inflexible. And spare me the Lincolns constitutional rights blather.
 

WJC

Major General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,964
Arkansas did view the Lincoln Regime call for troops (including troops from Arkansas) to invade the seven Southern states as an "unprovoked and illegal attack."
While conveniently overlooking the fifty-six U. S. forts, arsenals and ships that were seized by the first states to secede and the forced surrender of one-seventh of the U. S. Army to Texas militia, all before Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for volunteers.
<Dayton Pryor, The Beginning and the End: The Civil War Story of Federal Surrenders Before Fort Sumter and Confederate Surrenders After Appomattox. (Berwyn Heights, MD: Heritage Books, 2002).>
How did Arkansas rationalize the March 6, 1861, so-called 'Confederate Congress' authorization of an army of 100,000 twelve month volunteers?
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
20,100
Location
Laurinburg NC
While conveniently overlooking the fifty-six U. S. forts, arsenals and ships that were seized by the first states to secede and the forced surrender of one-seventh of the U. S. Army to Texas militia, all before Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for volunteers.
<Dayton Pryor, The Beginning and the End: The Civil War Story of Federal Surrenders Before Fort Sumter and Confederate Surrenders After Appomattox. (Berwyn Heights, MD: Heritage Books, 2002).>
How did Arkansas rationalize the March 6, 1861, so-called 'Confederate Congress' authorization of an army of 100,000 twelve month volunteers?
National integrity and security should be a government's first concern. Fifty-six foreign forts, arsenals and ships on Confederate territory was seen as a threat. As for the 100,000 volunteers, many were sent home since they could not be properly armed. But whatever their number present for duty, the government would have have been criminally negligent had it not taken defensive measure given the less than reinsuring attitude of the incoming Lincoln government.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

WJC

Major General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,964
National integrity and security should be a government's first concern. Fifty-six foreign forts, arsenals and ships on Confederate territory was seen as a threat.
Thanks for your response.
With the exception of Fort Sumter, all of those criminal acts took place before the so-called 'Confederate States' was formed. Some occurred before the state involved seceded. The only 'national security concern' was that presented by these illegal, rebellious acts.
 

WJC

Major General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,964
As for the 100,000 volunteers, many were sent home since they could not be properly armed.
Thanks for your response.
Nonetheless, that 'call for volunteers' was made long before Lincoln's call for volunteers (the one that supposedly upset so many secessionists).
Lincoln's call resulted in an overwhelming turnout so that many volunteers were turned away. The argument that "many were sent home since they could not be properly armed": why does that exonerate Davis while condemning Lincoln?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Greywolf

Sergeant
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
822
Thanks for your response.
With the exception of Fort Sumter, all of those criminal acts took place before the so-called 'Confederate States' was formed. Some occurred before the state involved seceded. The only 'national security concern' was that presented by these illegal, rebellious acts.
The csa was not going to take over Washington DC, NY, Mass, etc. They were merely securing their borders. I would say a wise course of action seeing how aggressive and bloodthirsty the US became. After all Abe wasn't going to let them go in peace!
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,327
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The csa was not going to take over Washington DC, NY, Mass, etc. They were merely securing their borders. I would say a wise course of action seeing how aggressive and bloodthirsty the US became. After all Abe wasn't going to let them go in peace!
@Greywolf ,

Still don't understand how this excuses all the war-like actions of the Southern slaveholding states prior to Lincoln taking office.

It seems the terms like "aggressive" and "bloodthirsty" should be applied to those South of the Mason-Dixon, especially before even some of those folks had seceded.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top