House drops Confederate Flag ban for veterans cemeteries

politico.com ^ | 6/23/16 | Matthew Nussbaum

[ColdOne]

A measure to bar confederate flags from cemeteries run by the Department of Veterans Affairs was removed from legislation passed by the House early Thursday.

The flag ban was added to the VA funding bill in May by a vote of 265-159, with most Republicans voting against the ban. But Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) both supported the measure. Ryan was commended for allowing a vote on the controversial measure, but has since limited what amendments can be offered on the floor.

[BroJoeK]

And that has something to do with Forrest?

[jmacusa]

No, I didn’t mean it to. I just feel the Almighty might not be so ... dismissive of us as you made HIM out to be. That is if I understood you correctly.

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "...Why didn't Lincoln call his Congress back earlier, say about two weeks after Fort Sumter like Jefferson Davis did his?
Wasn't the situation serious enough?"

No, not on April 15, which is when Lincoln both called up troops and called for Congress to convene on July 4.
It's clear from Lincoln's April 15 message that he expects military actions to be limited, relatively bloodless:

"...the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to re-possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country."

July 4 seems to me a patriotic day to call for Congress, not certain there was any other thought in it.
And July 4 puts the lie to pro-Confederate claims that the Federal government was in such dire financial straights.
Had the problem been as urgent as claimed, Lincoln would need Congress back right away -- as did Jefferson Davis.

rustbucket: "Was the New York Times pro-Confederate?
It reported what was said about the depleted state of the Treasury in February 1861 (i.e., the financial straits)"

Your link says that Congress' February action was "ineffectual", but Lincoln was offered by Congress to stay in session after March 28 and he declined, which strongly suggests the Federal finances were then not in as dire condition as sometimes claimed.

rustbucket: "While Lincoln's incentive to provoke respond to Confederate provocations of war was economic constitutional, his objective after the attack on Fort Sumter expedition was to cement that war in place defend the Constitution by invading the South restoring Federal properties and blockading their ports suppress the rebellion, all without with any necessary Congressional interference support.
That was his way of solving the two-tariff situation defeating rebellion that had the potential to ruin the Northern economy United States."

Sir, it takes a lot of work to correct your mistakes, but I think I got them all...

rustbucket: "Lincoln was still concerned with getting sufficient revenue to run the government after the attack on Fort Sumter.
He used that as an excuse for not moving toward peace and conciliation as urged by the Baltimore delegation that had an audience with him ("... what is to become of the revenue? I shall have no government -- no resources.")."

I think we've established that your "quote" itself is unconfirmed and even if accurate certainly taken out of context.
Sure, that Lincoln could be concerned about Federal revenues is totally understandable, but that he would express such concerns in this particular context, not so much.

rustbucket: "The following is just a partial list of the unconstitutional acts Congress members accused Lincoln of doing:"

Sure, opposition Democrats will say anything to smear Republicans, that's what they do.
But I would first refer you to various US Militia Acts (i.e., 1792), and then note that Congress itself did not censure any of Lincoln's actions and indeed strongly supported him throughout the war.

rustbucket: "Speaking of Ex parte Merryman..."

The author of the unspeakably wicked Dred-Scott decision was here effectively speaking out of school & out of court as a private individual and, as usual, was blathering nonsense.
In fact the Constitution recognizes Habeas Corpus is subject to normal peacetime conditions, and Congress eventually authorized Lincoln's actions.

Further, Tanney's useless bloviating did not actually direct Lincoln to do anything, so Lincoln never "failed to comply".

rustbucket: "So, during the interim between the attack on Fort Sumter and the delayed recall of Congress, Lincoln assumed the powers of Congress, the powers of the Judicial Branch, and even violated some of the Bill of Rights."

In fact, none of Lincoln's actions were censured by either Congress or the Supreme Court, so your opinions here are just that: pro-Confederate opinions.

rustbucket: "How do you justify Lincoln doing what he did?
Or is it OK with you that Obama assumed Legislative and Judicial powers also?"

The US Constitution recognizes the need for Federal responses to invasion or rebellion, which was not the case during the past eight years.
Again I refer you to various US Militia Acts.

rustbucket: "Congress can’t excuse or approve obvious violations of the Constitution after the fact.
They don’t have that power.
Such power would lead to anarchy or despotism."

Sure, from time to time both the Supreme Court and Congress take exceptions to presidential actions and so pass laws or rulings to modify them.
That is government & politics as usual, happens under every administration.
But if the President is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" then Congress' Constitutional response is much more direct: impeachment.
Nothing like that happened during the Civil War.

rustbucket: "All of this reminds me of Comey and Lynch not charging Hillary with her obvious violations of law.
Lincoln was their president -- they weren't going to go after their guy for violating the Constitution."

And just as today, citizens' remedies included voting the b*st*rds out of office, which they would have in 1862, 1864 or 1866, had Lincoln lost the war, but did not because they believed he could win it.

Bottom line here, FRiend, is that you wish to have restricted Union actions so they would lose the war, with equal restrictions not imposed on Confederates.
It's a argument that only appeals to Lost Causers.

rustbucket: "Back to the question of Lincoln and the expedition to Fort Sumter.
Lincoln had accomplished what he wanted with his expedition to Fort Sumter."

No, in the letter you quote out of context, Lincoln acknowledges his mission failed, while encouraging Fox not to blame himself.

"PRESIDENT LINCOLN TO CAPT. FOX.
WASHINGTON, May 1, 1861.
Capt. G.V. Fox:
MY DEAR SIR: "I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to you.
The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test.
By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground; while, by an accident, for which you were in no wise responsible, and possibly I to some extent was, you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise.

'I most cheerfully and truthfully declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation.
For a daring and dangerous enterprise, of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man, of all my acquaintances, whom I would select.
You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.'
Very truly, your friend, A. LINCOLN."

rustbucket: "He had to solve the two tariff situation that would ruin the Northern economy. "

In fact, your alleged "two tariff situation" has been exposed as nonsense, first by DoodleDawg on this thread (his post #1,324 to PeaRidge), because no rational businessman would ship his products through the Confederacy to Union customers, because that would tax them twice!
So that argument is just rubbish, and you people should give it up.

rustbucket: "I previously posted that his cabinet and military advisors had told him the result of Fox’s expedition would be a shooting war."

But more important than such opinions is the stern warning from Confederate Secretary of State Toombs to Jefferson Davis:

"Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North.
You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death.
It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."

So the real question here is not, "why did Lincoln attempt to resupply Fort Sumter?" but rather, "why did Jefferson Davis use Lincoln's resupply mission as his excuse to start Civil War?"
And the clear answer is: because that was necessary to force Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas to secede and join his Confederacy's war against the United States.

rustbucket: "Precisely.
He got the war he wanted.
Lincoln took an action that his advisors told him would provoke war, and afterwards he seemed satisfied that it resulted in war."

No, because in early 1861 all Unionists, including Lincoln and four former presidents, believed unilateral declarations of secession at pleasure were unlawful, but the Federal government could not take military actions to stop it unless the Confederacy started war.
It was precisely the feelings of Americans in 1941 regarding WWII -- they had to start it.

Once Confederates did start war, then every Unionist believed military responses were required.

rustbucket: "After the attack on Fort Sumter, he proclaimed a blockade on Southern ports, an internationally recognized act of war."

No, blockades have a very long history not always resulting from or in war, especially as related to rebellions.
But Confederates did make a formal declaration of war, on May 6, 1861.

rustbucket: "I've posted how the revenue in 1861 compared with 1860 revenue."

As have others (see PeaRidge's post #1,540 and my post #1,553).
These numbers demonstrate that, despite your claims, US tariff revenues fell only 26% in 1861, then rose 19%, 37% and 51% in following years.
So clearly your argument here is full of holes and carries no water.

rustbucket: "...perhaps that shortage of funds and revenue is why Lincoln unconstitutionally moved funds that Congress had appropriated for one purpose and spent it in another area."

So you people often claim, but I've seen no data to support it, or records of Congressional or Court actions against it.

Civil War began at Fort Sumter:

And yes, it was all about slavery:

[rustbucket]

Should you need more information about Lincoln's violations of the Constitution as charged by Congressmen, here’s a Link to post 282.

2. Lincoln only called up 75,000 Union troops, this six weeks after the Confederacy called up 100,000 troops.

The Confederacy did not call up 100,000 troops six weeks before April 12. The Confederate Congress authorized Jefferson Davis to ask for up to that many volunteers when he felt they were needed. Here's the first part of the March 6 act by the Confederate Congress that authorized Davis to call for volunteers if and when needed:

The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That in order to provide speedily forces to repel invasion, maintain the rightful possession of the Confederate States of America in every portion of territory belonging to each State, and to secure the public tranquility and independence against threatened assault, the President be, and he is hereby authorized to employ the militia, military and naval forces of the Confederate States of America, and to ask for and accept the services of any number of volunteers, not exceeding one hundred thousand, who may offer their services, either as cavalry, mounted riflemen, artillery or infantry, in such proportion of these several arms as he may deem expedient, to serve for twelve months after they shall be mustered into service, unless sooner discharged.

I note that these volunteers were intended to protect against invasion, maintain possessions (no doubt including forts) within the Confederacy, and secure independence against threatened assault. Davis was given the authority to ask for up to 100,000 volunteers as he may deem expedient. Nothing like that number were actually asked for or "called up" as you phrased it before the attack on Fort Sumter.

Davis thought it was expedient to ask for 20,000 of those volunteers on April 8 right after Lincoln informed the South that he was going to force his way into Fort Sumter with warships and troops if opposed. This was after Lincoln told the South that the fort would be evacuated (through his agent Lamon and through misleading messages by Seward to the Confederate Commissioners then in Washington to negotiate a peaceful resolution of issues). The Confederate Commissioners called Lincoln’s actions "gross perfidy" on April 10, and Major Anderson in Fort Sumter called it the start of the war when informed that Lincoln's expedition was coming.

South Carolina on its own may have called up about 10,000 troops before then, and Davis may have asked for smaller number of volunteers for specific locations a time or two before the attack on Sumter and the confrontation at Fort Pickens. I think in the past I estimated the total number of volunteers from what I could find out at about 40,000 at most, spread over the South, many of them local militias organizing without Davis asking for them. If I remember correctly, there were about 12,000 to 15,000 Confederate forces at Charleston at the time of the attack on Fort Sumter, but I don't have time this morning to track down my old figure (busy with a family occasion).

At the same time before the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln was meeting in private with many Northern Republican governors asking how many troops they could supply him and telling them to get ready. Pennsylvania went on a "war footing" after the governor met with Lincoln, and Massachusetts had begun gathering and equipping troops as early as January or February (both from memory).

The Confederate Congress's action authorizing Davis to ask for up to 100,000 volunteers on March 6th was prompted by Lincoln's inaugural speech on March 4 [Link]. Here was the reaction on March 5 in Montgomery, Alabama, where the Confederate Congress was meeting, to Lincoln's March 4 speech:

Latest from Montgomery

War considered Inevitable -- The Standing Army -- The War Strength

Montgomery, March 5 -- Since the receipt of the Inaugural address of Mr. Lincoln, it is universally conceded here that war between the Confederate States and the United States is inevitable. Mr. Benjamin said last night, that in his opinion, there would be a clash of Arms within thirty days.

Mr. Conrad concurred in this view of the aspect of affairs. The standing army of the Confederate States will be fixed at ten thousand men. Congress is now engaged in organizing the army. Of course, in case of hostilities, the number of men put in the field will be greater. It is calculated that the States now composing the Confederacy can place 80,000 on a movable war footing. [Source: Gazette and Sentinel, Plaquemine, Louisiana, March 9, 1861]

In such a situation, Davis would have been remiss if he did not prepare for what might happen. Certainly Lincoln was getting prepared as well.

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "I note that these volunteers were intended to protect against invasion, maintain possessions (no doubt including forts) within the Confederacy, and secure independence against threatened assault.
Davis was given the authority to ask for up to 100,000 volunteers as he may deem expedient.
Nothing like that number were actually asked for or "called up" as you phrased it before the attack on Fort Sumter."

First, FRiend, you're quibbling over word definitions, as in "called up".
The fact is that 100,000 Confederate troops were authorized and all who volunteered were accepted.
Even you don't know how many there actually were, at any given point in time, but we are told those first calls were enthusiastically answered, and ranks easily filled.
So we might suppose that in a Deep South with over 500,000 military age men, 100,000 were available on very short notice.

Second, your misleading claim that such troops were intended only to "defend" the Confederacy is exposed when we understand that "Confederacy" included many states & territories which were then, and some remained, Union states & territories.

rustbucket: "Major Anderson in Fort Sumter called it the start of the war when informed that Lincoln's expedition was coming."

And Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs warned Jefferson Davis against assaulting Fort Sumter:

"Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North.
You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death.
It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."

So why would Jefferson Davis use Lincoln's resupply mission as his excuse to start Civil War?
It can only be that Davis expected a huge reward, and he got it!
After Sumter, four states immediately flip-flopped from Union to Confederate and joined Davis' declared war against the United States, more than doubling the Confederacy's white population and potential troops.

Before Sumter, Davis' little Confederacy could not hope to stand up to the United States, but afterwards with Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas and the possibility of Kentucky & Missouri, now Confederates had a fighting chance.
There's no possibility Davis would pass up such an opportunity.

rustbucket: "I think in the past I estimated the total number of volunteers from what I could find out at about 40,000 at most, spread over the South, many of them local militias organizing without Davis asking for them."

40,000 or 100,000 you don't know, and either number is but a small fraction of the total young men available at the time.
So there's no reason to assume the full 100,000 would not be available on short notice.
This at a time when the entire United States Army totaled about 17,000 most scattered in small forts out west.

Lincoln's April 15 call for 75,000 troops was still fewer than Confederates and demonstrates Lincoln did not then intend major warfare.
But he did want to take back the forts & other properties unlawfully seized by Confederates.

rustbucket: "At the same time before the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln was meeting in private with many Northern Republican governors asking how many troops they could supply him and telling them to get ready."

Different Union states responded differently to secessionists declarations and hostile actions.
That Lincoln might review & prepare his options is not surprising.
As he said in his First Inaugural, Lincoln's commitment to peace would prevent war, unless Confederates started it.
Jefferson Davis knew it, but ordered war to begin at Fort Sumter anyway.

rustbucket: "The Confederate Congress's action authorizing Davis to ask for up to 100,000 volunteers on March 6th was prompted by Lincoln's inaugural speech on March 4."

Lincoln's Inaugural clearly told secessionists they could not have war unless they themselves started it.
So Confederates immediately responded by getting ready to do that, first at Fort Sumter.

rustbucket: "Certainly Lincoln was getting prepared as well."

The Union did nothing serious for war before Fort Sumter.

[BroJoeK]

jmacusa: " I just feel the Almighty might not be so ... dismissive of us as you made HIM out to be."

FRiend, I'm certainly not going to debate theology with you, for one thing, since I'm in no way qualified.
I'm only trying to make the case that if you consider Nathan Bedford Forrest's final public appearance, along with the rest of his life, it seems to me that Forrest came a very long way in a quite short period of time.
And I'm not certain how much more we can reasonably ask of a human being, as opposed to say, a divinity:

From July, 1875 to the black Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association, Forrest's last public appearance:

"Ladies and Gentlemen I accept the flowers as a memento of reconciliation between the white and colored races of the southern states.
I accept it more particularly as it comes from a colored lady, for if there is any one on God's earth who loves the ladies I believe it is myself.

(Immense applause and laughter.)

"This day is a day that is proud to me, having occupied the position that I did for the past twelve years, and been misunderstood by your race.
This is the first opportunity I have had during that time to say that I am your friend.
I am here a representative of the southern people, one more slandered and maligned than any man in the nation.

"I will say to you and to the colored race that men who bore arms and followed the flag of the Confederacy are, with very few exceptions, your friends.
I have an opportunity of saying what I have always felt – that I am your friend, for my interests are your interests, and your interests are my interests.
We were born on the same soil, breathe the same air, and live in the same land.
Why, then, can we not live as brothers?
I will say that when the war broke out I felt it my duty to stand by my people.
When the time came I did the best I could, and I don't believe I flickered.
I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong.
I believe that I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to bring about peace.
It has always been my motto to elevate every man- to depress none.

(Applause.)

"I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going.

"I have not said anything about politics today.
I don't propose to say anything about politics.
You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, that you and I are freemen.
Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office.
I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you.
I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself.
I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people.
I want you to come nearer to us.
When I can serve you I will do so.
We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together.
We may differ in color, but not in sentiment.
Use your best judgement in selecting men for office and vote as you think right.

"Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict.
I have been in the heat of battle when colored men, asked me to protect them.
I have placed myself between them and the bullets of my men, and told them they should be kept unharmed.
Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I'll come to your relief.
I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity you have afforded me to be with you, and to assure you that I am with you in heart and in hand."

(Prolonged applause.)

And lest you suppose Forrests sentiments were common for his time, please consider the following:

"In response to that Pole-Bearers speech, the Cavalry Survivors Association of Augusta, the first Confederate organization formed after the war, called a meeting in which Captain F. Edgeworth Eve gave a speech expressing unmitigated disapproval of Forrest's remarks promoting inter-ethnic harmony, by ridiculing his faculties and judgement and berating the woman who gifted Forrest flowers as "a mulatto wench".
The association voted unanimously to amend its constitution to expressly forbid publicly advocating for or hinting at any association of white women and girls as being in the same classes as "females of the negro race".[63][64]

The Macon Weekly Telegraph newspaper also condemned Forrest for his speech, describing the event as 'the recent disgusting exhibition of himself at the negro [sic.] jamboree,' and quoting part of a Charlotte, North Carolina Observer article which read 'We have infinitely more respect for Longstreet, who fraternizes with negro men on public occasions, with the pay for the treason to his race in his pocket, than with Forrest and Pillow, who equalize with the negro women, with only 'futures' in payment.' [65][66]"

[jmacusa]

Joe, you’re a more forgiving man then me. What if the South had prevailed? How would history have judged Forrest?

[PeaRidge]

In a few posts here, it has been repeated that the Confederacy declared war on the Union.

For the benefit of the readers of this thread, this is not true.

Using the words “confederacy, war, declaration” in Internet searches produces no documentation from “The Official Records of the War....”, or the records of either the Confederate or Union Congressional records.

Some posters and bloggers make the claim using a May 6th, 1861 document, but that document is not a war declaration. Jefferson Davis approved a bill from the Confederate Congress that confirmed that a state of war existed between the Confederacy and the Union.

No request or declaration of war was made by the Confederate congress.

[BroJoeK]

jmacusa: " What if the South had prevailed?
How would history have judged Forrest?"

Anyone can easily see the world today would be vastly different, had the Confederacy won.
For one thing, slavery would have an impregnable global strong-hold against the world-tide of abolitionism, and may well have survived in some form indefinitely.

Under such conditions Forrest's Civil War role would be considered relatively minor, just as it is today.
But Forrest is noteworthy today for his obvious change of heart by 1875, a change which would not likely come about if the Confederacy won the war.

Btw, long-term readers of these threads know there's more to this old story about my great-grandfather's unit (119th Illinois volunteers) and Forrest.
In my opinion, Forrest saved my great grandfather's life at Dyer Station (Tennessee) in October, 1862, and in return my ggf's unit saved Forrest's life at Tupelo in July 1864.
So I hold no animosity for Forrest, if he had not been the kind of man he was, I could well not be here.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "Some posters and bloggers make the claim using a May 6th, 1861 document, but that document is not a war declaration.
Jefferson Davis approved a bill from the Confederate Congress that confirmed that a state of war existed between the Confederacy and the Union.
No request or declaration of war was made by the Confederate congress."

Now you're just quibbling over semantics.
As with Shakespeare's famous rose which smells the same regardless of what name we give it, likewise a declaration of war supports the same purposes, regardless of what it's called.

So of course the May 6, 1861 Confederate bill was a declaration of war.
It did everything a declaration of war normally does, especially providing war-time powers to the central authorities.

It's term-of-art, that

"war exists between the Confederate States and the Government of the United States"

are the same words President Roosevelt used after Pearl Harbor:

"I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire."

FDR's request resulted in this language in the declaration:
"the state of war...has thus been thrust upon the United States"

It was just as much a declaration of war as the document used by King George in August 1775 to declare war on American colonists.

Finally, remember our pro-Confederates are the same people who call President Lincoln's totally peaceful First Inaugural "a declaration of war".
See rustbucket's post #1,704 above.

[rustbucket]

It's clear from Lincoln's April 15 message that he expects military actions to be limited, relatively bloodless:

If Lincoln truly believed that, he was hopelessly naïve in reading the situation given the bitter four-year struggle that followed his actions. I don't think Lincoln was naïve. He was cunning and smart.

Your link says that Congress' February action was "ineffectual", but Lincoln was offered by Congress to stay in session after March 28 and he declined, which strongly suggests the Federal finances were then not in as dire condition as sometimes claimed.

Got any documented proof of that?

There is another interpretations which you don't accept. That's fine. Believe what you want. If Lincoln were intent on provoking war, he would do exactly what he did regardless of the immediate financial strait the country was in. He told the Senate that he had nothing to tell before they closed the session, yet the same day he asked that the expedition plan be started. He waited until Congress adjourned sine die before putting into motion the Sumter expedition that would very probably provoke that war. Since under a sine die session closure, Congress couldn’t call itself back into session until the Constitutionally stated date in December or until Lincoln called them back under his powers in the Constitution.. After sine die he wouldn’t have to deal with Congress in doing what he wanted until July 4, the date he set for their reconvening..

Remember that April 5, 1861 Carl Schurz letter to Lincoln that I posted to you above? Schurz said Lincoln had earlier told him that he (Lincoln) didn't want to call an extra session of congress for fear of reopening the compromise agitation. I suspect based on Lincoln's actions that Lincoln thought war was a better option for him than trying to compromise with a South that was glad to be free of the anti-slavery agitation, the protective tariff and other sectional aggrandizements that benefitted the North at the expense of the South.

rustbucket: "While Lincoln's incentive to provoke respond to Confederate provocations of war was economic constitutional, his objective after the attack on Fort Sumter expedition was to cement that war in place defend the Constitution by invading the South restoring Federal properties and blockading their ports suppress the rebellion, all without with any necessary Congressional interference support.
That was his way of solving the two-tariff situation defeating rebellion that had the potential to ruin the Northern economy United States."

Sir, it takes a lot of work to correct your mistakes, but I think I got them all...

Ever hear of the logical fallacy of slothful induction? It means, "The proper conclusion of an inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary."

Here is some evidence to the contrary of your beliefs:

Point 1. General Scott and Major Anderson argued that a huge number of troops 25,000 in one case 20,000 in the other (from memory) to take and hold Fort Sumter. Lincoln sent a totally inadequate force if that was his objective.

In fact, even with large force of troops and ships, the Union never was able to take Fort Sumter during the war until 1865 despite shelling Charleston civilians for 18 months in expressed hopes that the Confederate Army would turn over the fort to the Union to stop the shelling of the townspeople. Geeze Louise.

Point 2. Lincoln said his objective was to supply the fort with food (despite General Scott saying the objective was to reinforce the fort). Why would Lincoln send such a provocative expedition and risk war when the Confederates were allowing Anderson to obtain fresh food supplies in Charleston until April 7 or 8 when the Confederates learned that an armed expedition was on the way from the North.

Point 3. If successful in delivering food, the North would have to go through the exercise again when the fort ran out of food again. Besides, a peaceful transfer of food wouldn't solve Lincoln's two-tariff problem that would ruin the Northern economy. He would have to blockade the Southern ports or have the fort bombard ships coming into Charleston.

Point 4. Besides, Gideon Welles, Lincoln’s Secretary of the Navy, reported in his Diary that at the first meeting of the cabinet, "there was a very general and very determined opinion expressed that Fort Sumter ought to be and should be reinforced." Wells also writes that "the President decided ... that an attempt should be made to convey supplies to Major Anderson, and that he would reinforce Sumter." [Source: "Lincoln Takes Command, How Lincoln Got The War He Wanted," by John Shipley Tilley, pages 207-208]. So, General Scott was right in saying that the object of the expedition was to reinforce Fort Sumter.

Point 5. Lincoln pulled the powerful ship, the Powhatan, away from the Sumter expedition at the last moment, lowering the chances that the expedition would be able to force its way into Sumter. My take is that he would be happy if all the expedition did was to get the Confederates to “fire on the flag” that he could use to stir up patriotic feelings in the North. To a large extent that worked.

[rustbucket]

The truth is that no Republican paper ever called for war against the Confederacy based strictly on economics.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But they apparently did call for war. From an old post by 4CJ [the emphasis below was 4CJ's]:

Statement of Joseph Medill, editor of the Chicago Tribune, petitioning Lincoln and Stanton for relief:

I shall never forget how he suddenly lifted his head and turned on us a black and frowning face.

"'Gentlemen, he said, in a voice full of bitterness, 'after Boston, Chicago has been the chief instrument in bringing this war on the country. The Northwest has opposed the South as New England has opposed the South. It is you who are largely responsible for making blood flow as it has. You called for war until we had it. You called for Emancipation, and I have given it to you. Whatever you have asked you have had. Now you come here begging to be let off from the call for men which I have made to carry out the war you have demanded. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. I have a right to expect better things of you. Go home, and raise your 6,000 extra men.

And you, Medill, you are acting like a coward. You and your 'Tribune' have had more influence than any paper in the Northwest in making this war. You can influence great masses, and yet you cry to be spared at a moment when your cause is suffering. Go home and send us those men.'

"I couldn't say anything. It was the first time I ever was whipped, and I didn't have an answer. We all got up and went out, and when the door closed, one of my colleagues said: 'Well, gentlemen, the old man is right. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves.' “

Source: Ida Tarbell, (Joseph Medill meeting with Lincoln), Life of Lincoln, McClure, Phillips & Co., 1900, Vol. III, p. 149

Medill’s Chicago Tribune was a longtime supporter of Lincoln, the Republicans, and the Union. [Source: Lincoln and the Press. by Robert S. Harper].

It is funny to see Lincoln blaming the war he started on the demands of Northerners. That is your God with feet of clay there, BJK. He didn’t blame Davis for the war, at least not in this meeting. And Medill said that he was correct.

[DoodleDawg]

Y’all realize that this crap’s been going on for nigh on five months? And you all keep talking past each other, repeating the same old same old over and over again, and treating newspaper editorials as if they were fact instead of opinion? You guys really need to get a life.

[rustbucket]

[BroJoeK]: rustbucket: "Lincoln was still concerned with getting sufficient revenue to run the government after the attack on Fort Sumter.
He used that as an excuse for not moving toward peace and conciliation as urged by the Baltimore delegation that had an audience with him ("... what is to become of the revenue? I shall have no government -- no resources.")."

[BroJoeK]: I think we've established that your "quote" itself is unconfirmed and even if accurate certainly taken out of context.
Sure, that Lincoln could be concerned about Federal revenues is totally understandable, but that he would express such concerns in this particular context, not so much.

"There you go again" (/Reagan voice). That is an example of your logical fallacy of slothful induction. Where exactly was that quote unconfirmed? Two different Baltimore newspapers essentially said the same thing about a meeting urging Lincoln to take a peaceful path after the attack on Fort Sumter. Where was it shown that the quote was out of context? That was Lincoln's reason for not going down the peaceful path the YMCA delegates proposed. Peace wouldn’t solve Lincoln's financial problem unless he urged repeal of the Morrill Tariff, and even that wouldn’t completely solve the Federal financial problem.

You agree that above that Lincoln could have been concerned about Federal revenue. Isn't that in conflict with your conclusion further above that Lincoln not extending the Senate session after March 28 'strongly suggests the Federal finances were then not in as dire condition as sometimes claimed"? Which of the two is it?

It is apparently now OK with you for Lincoln to be concerned about Federal revenue, but you just don't believe he would tell anybody. Lincoln said essentially the same thing to another person in early April. What evidence do you have that he didn't say such things? Source please.

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "If Lincoln truly believed that, he was hopelessly naïve in reading the situation given the bitter four-year struggle that followed his actions.
I don't think Lincoln was naïve.
He was cunning and smart."

Sure, Lincoln was smart enough, but in April 1861 also naïve and certainly was not prescient.
Lincoln's lack of prescience is clearly demonstrated by his inability to pick a winning Army commander for over two years.
Obviously, as you've posted on this thread, many Southerners expected war and were preparing for it.
Lincoln saw his duty as preserving peace while enforcing the laws until and unless Confederates started war.

rustbucket referring to Federal finances: "Got any documented proof of that?"

Sure, among the final actions of the old 36th Congress, in March 1861 was to authorize a $10 million loan.
So Lincoln began his administration with enough money to pay his bills, at least until July.

rustbucket: "After sine die he wouldn’t have to deal with Congress in doing what he wanted until July 4, the date he set for their reconvening.. "

Again you assume prescience on Lincoln's part.
I would say on April 15 he merely did not foresee a need for Congress before July.
And as it happened, he was correct in that.

rustbucket: "Remember that April 5, 1861 Carl Schurz letter to Lincoln that I posted to you above?
Schurz said Lincoln had earlier told him that he (Lincoln) didn't want to call an extra session of congress for fear of reopening the compromise agitation."

First of all, only the Senate, not the full Congress, was in special session until March 28, doubtless to confirm Lincoln's appointments.
When that work was done, Lincoln said they could go home.

Second, by "earlier" Schurz must mean March or before, when the overall situation was quite different.

Third, on Congressional "compromises" -- certainly Lincoln opposed unreasonable compromises and Republicans then, just as now, were too often weak-willed brown nosing natural born compromisers.
Further, no previous efforts at "compromise" had produce any positive responses from secessionists, so I'd guess that "compromise" proposals by congressional Republicans were nothing more than self-flagellation, in Lincoln's mind.

rustbucket: "I suspect based on Lincoln's actions that Lincoln thought war was a better option for him than trying to compromise with a South "

Many Congressional "compromises" had already been proposed, and none produced positive responses from secessionists.
So that route was already closed off, not by Lincoln but by Confederates themselves.
But on the question of war, from Day One Lincoln was totally clear: secessionists could not have a war unless they themselves started it.
Lincoln then set about completing the resupply missions President Buchanan had attempted and failed at in January.

Remember, according to your own posts, many Southerners had long declared war inevitable.
So Lincoln could not be terribly surprised, only determined that if/when war came, Confederates started it.

rustbucket: "Point 1. General Scott and Major Anderson argued that a huge number of troops 25,000 in one case 20,000 in the other (from memory) to take and hold Fort Sumter.
Lincoln sent a totally inadequate force if that was his objective."

Right, totally inadequate for war, only adequate for a peaceful resupply mission.

rustbucket: "Point 2. Lincoln said his objective was to supply the fort with food (despite General Scott saying the objective was to reinforce the fort).
Why would Lincoln send such a provocative expedition and risk war when the Confederates were allowing Anderson to obtain fresh food supplies in Charleston until April 7 or 8 when the Confederates learned that an armed expedition was on the way from the North."

First of all, whatever Anderson's actual situation may have been, he told Washington in early March that he, Anderson, had only six weeks of food & supplies left, so Lincoln believed he must do something by April 15.
Now we might speculate on whether Anderson lied about his supposedly dire straights, or are reports of Charleston supplying food to Sumter exaggerated?

Regardless, when Beauregard demanded Anderson surrender, Anderson's response was, in effect: "not now, but if you'll just wait a few more days, my supplies will be gone and then I must surrender or starve".
So I am inclined to discount reports which say Anderson was really fat & happy in Fort Sumter in early April, 1861.

The fact is that in early April, 1861 Lincoln must either resupply Fort Sumter or surrender it, and he was not going to surrender without first making the attempt to resupply.
And if Davis used that as his excuse to start Civil War, then so be it.
That's my best guess on Lincoln's state of mind at the time.

rustbucket: "Point 3. If successful in delivering food, the North would have to go through the exercise again when the fort ran out of food again."

If successful, it would certainly buy time for further events and would establish a precedent for future missions.

rustbucket: "Besides, a peaceful transfer of food wouldn't solve Lincoln's two-tariff problem that would ruin the Northern economy.
He would have to blockade the Southern ports or have the fort bombard ships coming into Charleston."

As we've pointed out now many times: your alleged "two-tariff problem" is a total figment of pro-Confederate imaginations.
In fact, Lincoln was committed to maintain the peace until or unless Confederates started war.

rustbucket: "Wells also writes that 'the President decided ... that an attempt should be made to convey supplies to Major Anderson, and that he would reinforce Sumter.' "

It's obvious that a distinction between "reinforce" versus "resupply" only became clear as the mission date grew closer.
But Lincoln's final orders to his commanders were clear: no reinforcement if the resupply mission went peacefully.

rustbucket: "So, General Scott was right in saying that the object of the expedition was to reinforce Fort Sumter."

Scott was a bit of a loose cannon, whom Lincoln had to dress down on occasion.
Lincoln's last orders are clear and overrode whatever Scott may have said earlier.

rustbucket: "My take is that he would be happy if all the expedition did was to get the Confederates to 'fire on the flag' that he could use to stir up patriotic feelings in the North.
To a large extent that worked."

My take is that in early April 1861, Lincoln had no choice except to send a resupply mission to Fort Sumter, in hopes it could do its job peacefully.
But if Lincoln's ships met with military hostility, then it would at least be clear who started the war.

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "Perhaps, perhaps not.
But they apparently did call for war."

In early 1861 Northern calls for war against secessionists rose & fell in volume depending on latest events.
Whenever Confederates unlawfully seized another Federal property, or threatened Union officials or fired on Union ships, then Northern newspapers called for actions to punish wrongdoers.
And whenever rumors of peace or compromises circulated, then calls for military actions stopped.

My point here is that no Northern call for military actions was based on economic reasons alone.

rustbucket: "It is funny to see Lincoln blaming the war he started on the demands of Northerners.
That is your God with feet of clay there, BJK.
He didn’t blame Davis for the war, at least not in this meeting.
And Medill said that he was correct."

Typical rubbish & nonsense from a Lost Cause mythologizer.
Clearly, as your own quote points out, Lincoln is here addressing people hoping to miserably weasel out of their duties to raise the troops Lincoln called up.
So the issue here was not Davis' actions, but rather what those Northerners had said & done to support the Union.

As I've reported frequently, in early 1861 there were many Northern calls for military action against secessionists.
But these were strictly driven by the actions of those secessionists in seizing Federal properties, threatening Union officials and firing on Northern ships.
When news or rumors of peace circulated, then those calls stopped.

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "Two different Baltimore newspapers essentially said the same thing about a meeting urging Lincoln to take a peaceful path after the attack on Fort Sumter."

Seems to me that rockrr & others produced evidence that those reports were strictly after-the-fact partisan hearsay, unconfirmed by any more objective sources.
Again, I'd say that any Federal official would naturally be concerned about revenues, but that Lincoln would express such concerns in this particular context is unexpected and unconfirmed.

rustbucket: "Peace wouldn’t solve Lincoln's financial problem unless he urged repeal of the Morrill Tariff, and even that wouldn’t completely solve the Federal financial problem."

Peace would allow Congress time to do whatever was necessary to match its revenues to expenses.
So I'll say again: economic reasons alone are not enough to drive Americans to war, regardless of what your Marxist professors may have brainwashed you to believe.

[BroJoeK]

DoodleDawg: "Y’all realize that this crap’s been going on for nigh on five months?"

I started posting on Free Republic in 2004, and am pretty sure my first Civil War thread within a few months of that time, so that's about 12 years.
Yes, a lot of the issues are the same, but there do seem to be always new arguments & new data for old arguments.

DoodleDawg: "You guys really need to get a life."

My life allows a certain amount of time for this kind of play.

[rockrr]

I’m still chuckling over the mises reference...;’}

[PeaRidge]

Some here reject sources. Lets see if the words are rejected.

Progressive Thought led to the Failure of the elected Representatives to uphold the Constitution.

“Driven from every other corner of the earth, freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last resort." Samuel Adams

The eighteenth century ended with the American Revolution bringing about the creation of the first classical liberal government. It was a government founded upon a blueprint in a written constitution, which allowed very few powers in the central government and protected individual liberties even from the vote of the majority. It provided for the ownership and protection of private property, free speech, freedom of religion, and basically a free-market economy with no direct taxes. All political factions had united behind the administration of President Washington to proclaim a domestic and foreign policy based upon non-interventionism and neutrality in the affairs of others. This remained the dominant political idea of American policy for over fifty years. However, the carefully constructed Constitution of the republic underwent a complete revision, leading away from the intent of the founders.

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” —James Madison

Using war, Abraham Lincoln was the principal instigator of America's change from its heritage. It was not a foreign foe, but it was a war, even a “victorious” war, that ended the Founders’ dreams in America. Very little would be revealed to the American people on the real cause and effect of the American Civil War, and instead it was proclaimed to be a “noble war” to free the slaves, and therefore, worth all of its costs.

In fact, it was a war to repudiate the ideas of a limited central government and it moved America towards limiting the rights of the individual. The victory led to a massive consolidation of power into the central government which was the basic idea the Constitution attempted to avoid. The Northern states and Republican Party’s victory was the beginning of the growth of empire at home, the loss of freedom to Americans and the destruction of the original ideas of our Founders.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis would say:
“We feel that our cause is just and holy; we protest solemnly in the face of mankind that we desire peace at any sacrifice save that of honour and independence; we ask no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms.”

“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” —James Madison, Federalist No. 51

(excerpts from Denson, A Century of War)