Contribution intéressante dans le NY Times, un article qui présente le choix douloureux du Missouri au moment du déclenchement du grand conflit entre le Nord et le Sud. Qui appuyer?
Une citation d'un partisan modéré de l'Union:
“If God should tell me I had either to go to Hell or the Southern Confederacy I should ask for a week of deliberation.”
Un extrait:
"In between sat the majority of the state’s population. They considered themselves “Conditional Unionists,” moderates who advocated staying with the Union as long as the federal government did not interfere with the state’s rights to own slaves. Most white Missourians boasted they favored “neither union-splitters nor rail-splitters.” In the 1861 election, moderate northern Democrat Stephen A. Douglas notched his only victory in Missouri. Jackson won the governorship by convincing these “submissionists,” as the Ultras derided them, that he too was a moderate on secession.
The result was a state poised on the edge of secession. In the days following the failure of the Washington Peace Convention, the Missouri legislature adopted a resolution stating that if the federal government violated its sovereignty, the state would join with “their Southern brethren to resist the invaders at all hazards.” Now on record as having suggested, without having voted, for neutrality, Missourians embraced a paradox, one that postured them both within and without the Union, at once opposing the state’s withdrawal from the national government and the intervention of that government in the state’s affairs. This was qualified loyalty."
L'article au complet:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/missouris-war-within-the-war/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire