With all due respect, Lincoln wasn’t defending the Constitution. He was trying to restore the Union at the point of many many guns. In retrospect, it was the right call. But please don’t say that it was Constitutional. It wasn’t.
In retrospect, it was the wrong call.
The right call would have been to recognize their right to secede, then go to war over the slavery issue anyway.
Likely the south would have gone ahead and abolished slavery, and reunited with the north twenty years later (by which time slavery had been rendered un viable by the progression of the industrial revolution.)
But he was defending the constitution. And I will say that it was constitutional - because it was.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 gives control of the militia to the president.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 commands an oath of office of a president:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Combined with the Uniform Militia Act of 1792 and the Militia Act of 1796 the president is permitted to call out the militia to put down insurrections or rebellions.
The die was already cast before Lincoln assumed office. He did what he could to calm the insurrectionists but they were fixed on a path of destruction. It was Lincoln’s duty to respond to the rebellion and he did his duty.
Thank God.
“Please don’t say it was constitutional. It wasn’t.”
But of course the US Constitution fully authorizes the federal govetnment to repel invasions, defeat rebellions and fight wars formally declared on the United States.
Therefore, people who pretend otherwise are practicing self-delusions they hope to perpetrate on others.
So the question is, why?