Why Did Arkansas Secede?

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

Greywolf

Sergeant
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
@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
UB, I dont excuse their acts, but i understand the "why" behind them. Certainly to one side its aggressive and could be deemed warlike.
The way I see it they had little choice, they went all in. What they saw as patriotic and constitutional, the US saw as rebellion. Kind of secure your border and hope for the best. Be prepared in case negotiations fail. I believe they hoped to get out peacefully but that was not to be the case. We know Lincoln was not going to allow the fracture of the nation permanently, they had a sliver of hope he would. I also believe doing it the "legal" way would not have flown, see sentence before this one. Again, they were all in, no negotiation, no recognition, no tucking tail and going back, the die was cast. That is why borders were secured. Lastly, yes,there was plenty of bloodthirsty to go around.
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
Political propaganda that the Arkansas citizens seem to believe for some reason.
Perhaps a picture is enlightening.
View attachment 299274
The delegates at the Arkansas Secession Convention didn't think it was propaganda when they passed their Ordinance of Secession which pledged "the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union". They viewed Lincoln's call for troops as an attempt to subjugate the lower southern states.
 
Last edited:

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
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?
Countries have armies, they exist in peace or war. there are insurance against any threats that might arise.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 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!
Thanks for your response.
Are you suggesting that crime depends on location? Forcibly seizing a Federal installation in say Mt. Vernon, Alabama or Harpers Ferry Virginia was not really a crime? (In both cases, the state had not yet decided to secede.)
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
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.
I can't speak for Arkansas, but in North Carolina, all such federal installations seized by mobs or by an unauthorized act by a local militia before Lincoln's call for troops were returned by pro-secessionist Governor John Ellis.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Countries have armies, they exist in peace or war. there are insurance against any threats that might arise.
Thanks for your response.
Yet the so-called 'Confederate States' was never a country. The incidents being discussed occurred when even the secessionists agreed that they were still a part of the United States and the states involved were in direct defiance of Article I, Section 10 of our Constitution.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Thanks for your response.
Yet the so-called 'Confederate States' was never a country. The incidents being discussed occurred when even the secessionists agreed that they were still a part of the United States and the states involved were in direct defiance of Article I, Section 10 of our Constitution.
I get the impression from posts like this one that there are people here unaware of glaring precedence in this very country that led to its independence.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
I get the impression from posts like this one that there are people here unaware of glaring precedence in this very country that led to its independence.
Thanks for your response.
However, its meaning eludes me. Can you please clarify?
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
I can't speak for Arkansas, but in North Carolina, all such federal installations seized by mobs or by an unauthorized act by a local militia before Lincoln's call for troops were returned by pro-secessionist Governor John Ellis.
Sounds like, Gov. Ellis was a truly upright man whom...at the moment, respected the Constitution and the differences between state and federal prerequisites and responsibilities. I must read more about him.

A pity...his example was seemingly too late, for others to follow.

Edit: for clarity
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
I can't speak for Arkansas, but in North Carolina, all such federal installations seized by mobs or by an unauthorized act by a local militia before Lincoln's call for troops were returned by pro-secessionist Governor John Ellis.
Ellis also opposed secession, believing (as Alexander Stephens and other notables) that the practice of slavery could best be preserved within the Union.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Ellis also opposed secession, believing (as Alexander Stephens and other notables) that the practice of slavery could best be preserved within the Union.

John Ellis did believe slavery could be preserved within the union but that didn't mean he wasn't an ardent secessionist, certainly after the election of Lincoln if not before. Do you have a source for your statement? You may be confusing John Ellis with wartime governor Zebulon Vance who had been a pre-call for troops unionist.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Sounds like, Gov. Ellis was a truly upright man whom...at the moment, respected the Constitution and the differences between state and federal prerequisites and responsibilities. I must read more about him.

A pity...his example was seemingly too late, for others to follow.

Edit: for clarity
Gov. Ellis did order those installations seized after Lincoln's call for troops.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
The post that you refer to contains comments made at the initial meeting of the Arkansas Secession Convention in March 1861. At this meeting, the issue of slavery was a topic of discussion by the delegates in attendance. However, the delegates voted by a majority not to withdraw from the Union at that time and the Secession Convention adjourned. Subsequently, Lincoln's Call for Troops in April caused the Secession Convention to reconvene later that same month. The delegates had originally agreed that any attempt to coerce the southern states back into the Union would justify a decision to secede. Subsequently, the Convention voted overwhelmingly to secede from the Union in early May 1861 in response to the call for troops. The Ordinance of Secession approved by the Convention specifically refers to their opposition to the proposed federal coercion as a result of Lincoln's call for troops.
In a Civil War neutrality is not an option. The Secessionists of Arkansas made a decision and they paid the price. Lincoln calling out the Militia showed that sitting on the sidelines was no longer an option.
Leftyhunter
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
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.




Good advice... too bad Arkansas and South Carolina, had not cooled their heads together and took due notice of those 700K, before starting the War in the first place An act of War, is an Act of War and the Unions' was only in direct response to the previous acts of war by SC, et. al.,(including Arkansas').
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
The delegates at the Arkansas Secession Convention didn't think it was propaganda when they passed their Ordinance of Secession which pledged "the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union". They viewed Lincoln's call for troops as an attempt to subjugate the lower southern states.
And they were right!
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
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!
Absolutely. And he said so.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
All the talk by Arkansas of resisting coercion, when, in fact, they were ready enough support SC's act of coercion, 'to the last extremity' .
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
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.
Not sure about many Western Confederate Regiments refusing fight out of state. Certainly many members of the Missouri State Guard didn't wish to do so.
The backlash against General Hindman trying to Marshall more material support for the Confederacy after the debacle at Pea Ridge certainly point to issues of autonomy.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
All the talk by Arkansas of resisting coercion, when, in fact, they were ready enough support SC's act of coercion, 'to the last extremity' .
The majority of Arkansas white population certainly supported secession at least early in the war. There was considerable Unionist sentiment as well and over 10k white Unionists did enlist in the Union Army.
Leftyhunter
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top