Well, now, looky who decided to cloud up and rain down stupid all over this thread...
mvscal wrote:Truman wrote: Most all credible evidence was destroyed in The Battle of Wilson’s Creek. Tell me you knew. Oh, and it was Neosho, Assbreath, not Arkansas.
The Senate journal was recovered. Tell me you knew. Oh and guess what? They "neglected" to record the roll. A very curious omission from a group of individuals who were painstakingly careful in observing all the legal niceties in order to confer legitimacy to their actions.
Now why go through the trouble to line your legal ducks up all in a row and then fail to record the only order of business which would have given your little conference any degree of credibility?
The answer is quite simple. They didn't have a quorum...
Oh, I dunno: Maybe for the same reason that you went “through the trouble” to parse and re-write the very history that would torpedo your own argument?
BTW, pricecamp.org suggests your quorum take is full of shit:
...Wilson's Creek National Battlefield Park, has… the actual Senate Journals which reveal that a legal quorum existed in the Senate. The House records are not known to exist. A State Guard journal in the Gen. Sweeney Museum, reports that the vote for the House was being put off a couple days so that a quorum could be reached by the arrival of additional legislators. An important point to note, is that when the Federal government set up the Unionist government of the State, they made no point to dispel this report of a legal quorum, they simply "declared vacant all state offices, swept the General Assembly out of existence...and later vacated the Mo. Supreme Court and then even circuit clerks".
Yeah, they found the Senate journal alright. But I reckon you musta missed reading the part that said a legal quorum existed. As for the roll, what part of “
(M)ost all credible evidence was destroyed in The Battle of Wilson’s Creek” do you struggle with, Shit-for-brains?
I also noticed that you neglected to post any reference to published newspaper reports and eyewitness accounts that a legal quorum did indeed exist. From Wiki:
Reports of a quorum and even vote totals for both bodies also appeared in some newspapers. Their reliability, however, is unknown. The Charleston Mercury reported the session as follows:
"The meeting of the Missouri State Legislature, which passed the ordinance of secession at Neosho on the 2d inst. Was well attended - a full quorum being present, including 23 members of the Upper and 77 of the Lower House; 19 of the former and 68 of the latter constitute a quorum. The ordinance of secession was passed unanimously, and without a dissenting voice. It was dispatched to Richmond by a special messenger to the President, leaving Memphis yesterday morning en route." (November 25, 1861)
One of the earliest historical accounts of Missouri's role in the Civil War written by former Confederate Col. John C. Moore, who also states that a quorum was present at the session:
"In every particular it complied with the forms of law. It was called together in extraordinary session by the proclamation of the governor. There was a quorum of each house present. The governor sent to the two houses his message recommending, among other things, the passage of an act "dissolving all political connection between the State of Missouri and the United States of America." The ordinance was passed strictly in accordance with law and parliamentary usage, was signed by the presiding officers of the two houses, attested by John T. Crisp, secretary of the senate, and Thomas M. Murray, clerk of the house, and approved by Claiborne F. Jackson, governor of the State."
Nice job kicking your own ass, fuck-fuck.
mvscal wrote:Bottom line reality is the so-called Confederate government of Missouri never controlled jackshit in Missouri.
Kernel of truth here. Jackson was only able to govern territory that his tragically outnumbered Missouri State Militia was able to hold. But by your own parlance, the only thing in Missouri that was worth “jackshit” was St. Louis. And no, the Rebs did not control any of that.
mvscal wrote:Truman wrote:Funny, I’d imagine the sitting Confederate national government of that era might just disagree.
They just might but would anybody be able to hear them all the way down in Marshall, Texas?
Certainly not the ignorant asshole who first suggested that Missouri never seceded, then failed to acknowledge the fact after having his nose rubbed in it....
mvscal wrote:Truman wrote:What I DO know is that more Civil War battles were fought in the state of Missouri than anywhere else, save Virginia. I’d say that fact “contests” your asinine statement.
In what way? I wouldn't really dignify the small skirmishes and bushwhacking that went on in Missouri with the term 'battles.' It was a guerilla war. As I said earlier, it was necessary to beat you web toed, inbred gene splices into the dust in order show you the error of your ways. And beaten into the dust you were.
You wouldn’t dignify it that way because you’re dumber than a box of dicks.
If “small skirmishes and bushwhacking” fuelled the guerrilla war that beat the Rebs “into the dust” that they were, then how might any thinking person define the 16,000 men that bled the field red at Wilson’s Creek, or the more than 30,000 regulars and militia who fought at Westport in the defining engagement that determined the Civil War in the West?
Talk out of your ass, much, Buttface?
Harney tried a more diplomatic approach but confirmed Lyon's actions when he arrived in St. Louis. Lyon understood that the "sitting governor of the State of Missouri" was engaged in a treasonous conspiracy with Confederate officials to withdraw Missouri from the Union and arm pro-Confederate militias with the 36,000 weapons stored in the Federal arsenal at St. Louis. Then, as now, an officer of the United States Army is sworn to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.
If by diplomatic approach you mean that Harney looked to negotiate a truce between the Union and Missouri Militia General Sterling Price, then you would be correct. But Harney was ultimately sacked by Lincoln after Lyon used his political connections to effectively back-stab him. Your suggestion that Harney confirmed Lyon’s actions is in of itself, a Lying Action.
mvscal wrote:Truman wrote:The Wide Awakes spent the previous fall agitating the electorate in western Illinois. Read FAR-western Illinois. As in, within 10 miles of the fucking river. Their arms, uniforms, officers, and training were all secured from Illinois.
The Wide Awakes were a national movement, you brainless douche. The St. Louis Wide Awakes were the ones who raided the arsenal.
Right. The
St. Louis group that got all their weps and gear from Illinois, and who spent the previous Autumn terrorizing the electorate of that state. Gotcha. Other than parroting the resume of a 400,000 member nation-wide paramilitary group founded in New York, what’s your point Macaw-scal?
mvscal wrote:Truman wrote:Well, now, a murdering, marauding seditious terrorist chases Missouri’s freely elected government from its capitol before they can decide the question,
The question had already been decided, idiot. Jackson lost and refused to accept the verdict. He refused to raise troops for Federal service as he was required to do, he demanded the removal of Federal troops from Missouri which he had no authority to do. The country was at war and Jackson was openly pro-Confederate. That made him a traitor. Of course he and everyone who shared his beliefs were run out of town by Brigadier General Lyon per his constitutional duty to defend the nation against foreign and domestic enemies.
No, it hadn’t, dicknose,despite your best historical re-write. Missouri’s first secession vote occurred months before Fort Sumter. Their second vote resulted in the unanimous ratification of the Ordinance of Secession after the murderous Lyon took up arms against the state.
Lyon had absolutely zero legal authority to make war on the State of Missouri, as Missouri’s constitution superseded that of the Fed in ALL areas not provided for by the United States Constitution, including its desire to remain an armed neutral as well as exercising its right to refuse the largely unconstitutional mandate of the Union to provide armed belligerents to a cause its citizenry clearly didn’t believe in. I believe there might have been a couple of states that actually fought a fucking
War to press that right....
Oh, OK. Well, if you say so...
Neato. The Board version of nanny nanny-boo-boo!
Great take, melty.
Thanks. This thread would probably go much better for you if you tried posting a few yourself....
