“the Constitution does not authorize secession “at pleasure”, meaning for no good reason.”
And neither was the secession of the south ‘at pleasure’. They argued, and with due reason, that the federal government had overstepped their bounds. Sure, they lost, but the cost of such proved their case.
“In 1860 a united enthusiastic Democrat party could easily have held the 1.8 million from 1856, added hundreds of thousands more in carrying some northern states, and making them victorious.”
The Democrat party wasn’t divided in the North in the 1860 election - only Douglas ran. Lincoln won an absolute majority in every Northern state. The only two states that he could have lost were CA (4 ECs) and OR (3 ECs). That would turn Lincoln’s 180- 123 into 172 - 130.
“Many northerners cared nothing about slavery and were happy to vote for Democrats who promised to hold the Union together.”
Many northerners supported slavery. Lincoln was elected on a majority with only 39 percent of the vote.
“But Deep-South Fire-Eaters splitting the party demoralized and depressed Democrat voters, reducing their total in 1860 to just 1.6 million, and causing their defeat.”
Democrat voters altogether were 2.7 million in 1860. Their turnout wasn’t depressed, it increased. If you include Democrat + Southern Democrat only and no Bell, that’s still 2.1 million.
“In 1860 the election of Lincoln was not a foregone certainty.”
Insofar as Lincoln only needed the support of the North, yes, it was a foregone conclusion.
“In November 1860, when secessionists began to organize, there was no actual threat, no breech of contract, no “oppression or usurpation” — nothing except the constitutional election of a new president, who would not even take office for four more months.”
Had Lincoln been willing to seek a peaceful resolution as Buchanan tried, secession would not have occurred. Lincoln was willing to use force to override the constitutional issues. This is the mandate that he received from the North.
Do you really believe that the man elected by just 39 percent of those who voted represented the republic?
“There were dozens and dozens of seized Federal properties in every seceding state”
You said every state, not every seceding state. If the property was bought, paid for and maintained by the state, then it’s not exactly federal property anymore is it?
Did the North compensate the South for the property in the North that they took with them that the South helped pay for?
“In some cases Federal officials were detained, in others threatened and in some fired on.”
And what of the North? Did they compensate the South for their contribution to the northern fortifications?
“But in no case was there direct killing by one side’s soldiers of the other’s soldiers”
But there were Southern Civilians killed by northern gun runners, like John Brown.
“The response of Buchanan was to recognise the south.
It was Lincoln who chose to go to war with the South.”
Exactly - there was no cause to go to war, except from Lincoln.
“I don’t know about “gun runners” allegedly killing southern civilians, not clear what that might have to do with the lead-up to war.”
Then you’d best read some actual history of the war. John Brown ran guns - that is what he was paid to do.
Look up the Pottowatomie Massacre. He had already been convicted of Massacring civilians in Kansas.
Then he raided Harpers Ferry in 1859. With Northern guns bought and sold for that purpose. He killed 5 civilians.
“What he did do was talk things over with various intermediaries, who passed on Buchanan’s words to Confederate emissaries.”
What he did not do, is declare war on them. Why not? Because he hoped for a peaceful solution to the whole affair. Even after Lincoln began his invasion of the South, he was negotiating trying to avert the ultimate tragedy of brother killing brother. He failed. Lincoln ‘succeeded’ if it can be called a ‘success’ in subduing the South, but at a cost to constitutional governance and the rights of the states.
“He also ordered that Fort Sumter be resupplied, a January 1861 mission that was met with shore fire in Charlston Harbor, and had many Northerners calling for war even then.”
Given that the fort was no longer in his territory, this amounted to war.
“Lincoln chose nothing more than to repeat on a larger scale President Buchanan’s attempt to resupply Federal troops at Fort Sumter.”
Knowing full well, that the breach of Southern borders would trigger war.
“Confederate Declaration of War against the United States.”
Which occurred after Lincoln sent troops to the fort. Had Lincoln simply surrendered the fort, he could have averted the war.
“Whenever you seize by force property which is not yours, that’s aggression, FRiend.”
Oh, that’s not the case. If the north believed that seizing property was wrong, why did they seize the property of the south and devastate the Shenandoah and burn Atlanta? If they fought for the protection of property, they certainly forgot that was the case.
“You obviously know very little about the actual Civil War.”
How many battles were fought in Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, and New York? None.
The territory of the confederacy and the border states includes Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and New Mexico.
Show me a battle that was fought in Illinois, Ohio, Indiana or New York and I’ll concede the point.
“In a previous thread I took the time to look them up, and posted them, but today am away from home and don’t have my reference handy”
Maryland (voted to secede, overridden by the President). Pennsylvania (Gettysburg, already mentioned), West Virginia (part of Virginia which voted to secede) Kentucky, (Magoffin chose to be neutral, not Union territory until after the union invaded at the start of the war. Missouri, (voted to secede, overriden) Oklahoma (southern state, voted to secede). Kansas (see Bleeding Kansas), disputed territory. New Mexico, (southern state), Arizona, (southern state. Colorado (not at state).
“Pennsylvania was invaded three different times — in 1862, 1863 and 1864 or which Gettysburg was only the largest.”
As opposed to Virginia which was under continuous occupation from 1861 - 1865, with no fewer than several hundred skirmishes and 2/3rds of all the major battles of the war.
Sounds like an occupation to me.
“The Confederacy was on the march, beginning in South Carolina it grew from one state to seven, declared war on the United States and grew to 11 states, all the while seizing every Federal property it could.
Did so peacefully, through the state legislatures. If the federal government felt threatened by peaceful secession, enough so to declare war, then they provoked the war, not the south.
“Maryland (1862), West Virginia (1861 on), Kentucky (1861), Missouri (1861) and Oklahoma (1861), both to encourage their secession, and to seize as many militarily useful supplies as possible.”
All states, or parts of states that actually voted for secession. Technically these were southern states and part of the confederacy. When the North sent troops in to quash the secessionists, they began the occupation of the south.
“In the beginning of 1861 the Confederacy was the only aggressor, throughout most of 1861 was more aggressive, and its first major battle, at Manassas (Bull Run) was a clear Southern victory.”
And where is Manassas? Manassas is in Virginia! How is it aggression to defend your territory from the invasion from the North. 1st Manassas was a Union invasion that was defeated. The whole point to 1st Manassas was to put a quick end to the war by massing troops and trying to storm Richmond. They failed.
“the Confederacy was ready to fight a lot sooner than the North, and the result much of the war in 1861 started on Union property”
Uh, no. The opening battle of the war was an invasion by the North of the South, in 1st Manassas, which is in Virginia. Look it up.
“No one denies that civilians suffered deprivations, but there was no Civil War equivalent to, for example, the Soviets’ rape and destruction of Eastern Germany in 1945.”
Civilian casulties were some 50k Southerners.
The distinguished Civil War historian James McPherson has estimated that there were 50,000 civilian deaths during the war, and has concluded that the overall mortality rate for the South exceeded that of any country in World War I and all but the region between the Rhine and the Volga in World War II.
To the geographically challenged:
Manassas is in VA. 40 miles west of Washington-on-the-Potomac.
No they didn't -- nothing of the kind.
That's all just after-the-fact self justification.
Go back and read their Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.
The South Carolinians' argument includes just two points:
Finally it's utter nonsense because South Carolinians expressed no concern over the matter as long as Southern Democrats were in charge in Washington, DC, which they still were.
So their true concern was not over what Lincoln did do, but rather over what he might do in the future.
In short, in December 1860 there was no actual material breech-of-contract, and therefore South Carolinians declared their secession, in Madison's words, "at pleasure".
JCBreckenridge: "The Democrat party wasn’t divided in the North in the 1860 election - only Douglas ran."
True, but the fact is that hundreds of thousands of former Democrats (enough to win the election) voted for Republican Lincoln because they could well see that the Democrats were split and so bound to lose.
You surely remember that Democrats then (as now) considered themselves, and generally were, a natural majority -- bound to win every election if they held together under strong leadership.
And year after year, election after election, for decades that's just what they did.
But when Democrats met in April 1860, in Charleston South Carolina, the party split in two, and Republicans saw their opportunity -- for the first time since 1844 and only the third time since John Adams in 1796 -- to elect a non-Democrat President.
So a wave of enthusiasm swept over Republicans, and along with split & demoralized Democrats, political enthusiasm had the same effect in November 1860 as it does today -- enhanced Republican vote and suppressed the Democrats.
My point again is: Republican victory began with Democrats' self destruction.
JCBreckenridge: "Democrat voters altogether were 2.7 million in 1860. Their turnout wasn’t depressed, it increased.
If you include Democrat + Southern Democrat only and no Bell, that’s still 2.1 million."
Sorry, but I have to go by the numbers we have:
JCBreckenridge: "Insofar as Lincoln only needed the support of the North, yes, it was a foregone conclusion."
It was only a foregone conclusion after Southern Fire-Eaters walked out of their April 1860 convention, and refused to support the Democrats' nominee.
JCBreckenridge: "Had Lincoln been willing to seek a peaceful resolution as Buchanan tried, secession would not have occurred."
Again, you obviously don't know the real history here.
Buchanan opposed secession and was not willing to negotiate it with Confederate representatives.
Nor was he willing to turn over Forts Sumter and Pickens.
But he did not want to start a war, and so his strategy was, in effect, to "kick the can" into the next administration, which he did.
Lincoln's policies, as of March 1861 were the same as Buchanan's.
But Lincoln could in no way "kick the can" because Major Anderson in Fort Sumter soon informed Washington that he was running short of supplies -- and would be forced to surrender the Fort.
So Lincoln had to do something.
Lincoln chose to send resupply ships, just as Buchanan had attempted in January, but unlike Buchanan, Lincoln formally notified the South Carolina governor the ships were coming.
Resupplying Federal troops on Federal property is not an act of war.
But firing on those troops and seizing that property is, and that was the Confederacy's choice.
JCBreckenridge: "Lincoln was willing to use force to override the constitutional issues."
Wrong. Lincoln was willing to use force to protect Federal property.
There were no constitutional issues involved.
JCBreckenridge: "Do you really believe that the man elected by just 39 percent of those who voted represented the republic?"
Seriously, FRiend, what kind of a question is that?
Many if not most presidents in those days were elected with less than 50% of the popular vote.
The US Constitution does not provide one set of rules for presidents elected by over 50% and other rules for those with less than 50%.
The key facts are that the election was 1) 100% constitutional and 2) engineered by Southern Fire-Eaters who critically damaged the long-term Democrat majority.
JCBreckenridge: "You said every state, not every seceding state.
If the property was bought, paid for and maintained by the state, then it’s not exactly federal property anymore is it?"
All references to secessionists seizures of Federal property refer to Federal property within the seceding states.
"Federal property" means: lawfully owned by the Federal government.
In most cases we're talking about facilities built with Federal funds and manned by Federal employees, especially military.
JCBreckenridge: "Did the North compensate the South for the property in the North that they took with them that the South helped pay for?"
repeating himself: "And what of the North?
Did they compensate the South for their contribution to the northern fortifications?"
No state ever paid a tax to the Federal Government, only individuals and businesses pay taxes.
Nor does any citizen ever, on renouncing his citizenship, have the right to see his previously paid taxes returned to him.
So states had no lawful claim -- zero, zip, nada -- to seize by force property owned by the Federal government.
JCBreckenridge: "But there were Southern Civilians killed by northern gun runners, like John Brown."
John Brown was lawfully captured, tried, convicted and hanged for his crimes.
What precisely is your problem with that?
JCBreckenridge: graciously agreeing with himself: “The response of Buchanan was to recognise the south.
It was Lincoln who chose to go to war with the South.”
"Exactly - there was no cause to go to war, except from Lincoln."
JCBreckenridge referring to President Buchanan's response to secession: "What he did not do, is declare war on them."
Neither did President Lincoln, ever.
JCBreckenridge: "Lincoln ‘succeeded’ if it can be called a ‘success’ in subduing the South, but at a cost to constitutional governance and the rights of the states."
There was no constitutional issue.
Lincoln had no choice after the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
War and rebellion are fully provided for in the US Constitution.
You can look it up, FRiend.
JCBreckenridge: "Given that the fort was no longer in his territory, this amounted to war."
Nonsense, and you know it.
First of all, no law requires Federal property to change ownership just because of a new government.
So the Federal Government had every legal right to protect its property.
Second, remember the British maintained forts on US Great Lakes territory from the time of the Revolution until after the War of 1812, and those forts were not a cause of war.
So Union resupplies to Federal forts were only cause for war if the Confederacy wanted them to be.
JCBreckenridge: "Which occurred after Lincoln sent troops to the fort. Had Lincoln simply surrendered the fort, he could have averted the war."
Possibly, temporarily, but most likely the Confederacy would simply have picked a fight somewhere else.
The fact is those secessionists were aggressive, belligerent and confident they could win any battle.
Indeed, Lincoln was willing to give up Fort Sumter, if that was the price for keeping Virginia in the Union.
It's only after he realized from negotiators in Richmond that this wouldn't happen, that Lincoln decided to attempt another resupply mission.
JCBreckenridge: "Oh, that’s not the case.
If the north believed that seizing property was wrong, why did they seize the property of the south and devastate the Shenandoah and burn Atlanta?"
Maybe you can answer this one yourself -- do you suppose the Confederacy's declaration of war on the United States, on May 6, 1861 had anything to do with it?
JCBreckenridge: "The territory of the confederacy and the border states includes Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and New Mexico."
The territory of the Confederacy did not include Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Arizona or Colorado.
Those were all Union states or territories which Confederate forces invaded at some point.
JCBreckenridge: "Show me a battle that was fought in Illinois, Ohio, Indiana or New York and I’ll concede the point."
What point? Not my point.
My point of fact is: the Confederacy sent military forces into every state and territory adjacent to the Confederacy, and even some far removed -- i.e., Kansas, Arizona, Colorado.
These invasions clearly demonstrate that the Confederacy was every bit as aggressive as it could be, and only failed to invade other northern states because it lacked the strength to do so.
JCBreckenridge: "Sounds like an occupation to me."
The appropriate response to an entity which formally declares war on the United States.
JCBreckenridge:
Maryland was a Union state, never voted to secede.
Maryland sent 60,000 troops to the Union army, 25,000 to the Confederates.
Pennsylvania a Union state, is not adjacent to any Confederate state, was invaded three different times, in 1862, 1863 & 1864.
West Virginia officially became a Union state in 1863, but Confederate forces continued to fight there until the end of the war.
Kentucky was always a Union state, never voted to secede, but Confederate forces invaded and fought there throughout the war.
Missouri never voted to secede, was always a Union state, but Confederate forces fought there throughout the war.
Missouri supplied about 100,000 troops to the Union army, 40,000 to the Confederacy, roughly the same ratio as Maryland.
Oklahoma was a territory of the United States, could not vote to secede, was invaded by Confederate forces beginning in 1861.
Kansas was a Union state, never voted to secede, supplied about 20,000 troops for the Union army and was invaded several times by Confederate forces, which were each time defeated.
New Mexico was Union territory, could not vote to secede, supplied 8,000 troops to the Union army, invaded by Confederate forces in 1861.
They were eventually defeated and driven back to Texas.
Arizona was Union territory, part of New Mexico, invaded by Confederate forces in 1862. They were defeated.
The Federal Government never did declare war, but the Confederacy did, on May 6, 1861.
Prior to the Confederacy's declaration of war, no Southern soldier had been directly killed by any Union force, because of Lincoln's publicly announced policy that war could only come if the Confederacy started it.
JCBreckenridge: "All states, or parts of states that actually voted for secession.
Technically these were southern states and part of the confederacy.
When the North sent troops in to quash the secessionists, they began the occupation of the south."
Sorry, but none of those states ever voted for secession, all were technically and legally Union states, all supplied far more troops to the Union than Confederacy, all helped to defeat the Confederacy when it attempted to invade them.
JCBreckenridge: "1st Manassas was a Union invasion that was defeated."
In 1861 the Confederacy sent forces into the Union states or territories of West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Mexico and possibly Maryland (not certain on this one).
Until the end of the year, the Union had forces in only one Confederate State, Virginia, and there the Union was defeated.
JCBreckenridge: "Uh, no. The opening battle of the war was an invasion by the North of the South, in 1st Manassas, which is in Virginia. Look it up."
That was far from the war's first battle.
Before Manassas there were battles against invading Confederate forces in New Mexico, and Missouri.
Soon after, Confederates invaded Kentucky, Oklahoma, and by 1862 Maryland, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
JCBreckenridge: "The distinguished Civil War historian James McPherson has estimated that there were 50,000 civilian deaths during the war, and has concluded that the overall mortality rate for the South exceeded that of any country in World War I and all but the region between the Rhine and the Volga in World War II."
Yes, Confederate military death percentages were as high as many countries in WWII, but the civilian number is highly dubious.
First of all the number 50,000 is totally unjustified by anything other than statistical theoretical extrapolations of how many might have lived had there been no war.
Any actual list of names of Southern civilians killed by Union soldiers is minuscule to nonexistent.
Indeed, I've never seen such a list, if it exists, so I don't buy the figure of 50,000 civilian deaths caused by "military actions or crimes against humanity" -- which is what was counted for WWII.
Second, even if the 50k figure were reasonably correct, and represents premature deaths due to exposure or shortages, it is still not comparable to WWII.
50,000 civilians is about 1/2 of 1% of the Confederate population (including slaves), and was matched or exceeded by many countries in WWII, including such western Europeans as Belgium, Netherlands, France and Greece.