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.
“had neither done nor said anything to excite the South Carolina secessionists”.
I’m pretty sure the Lincoln-Douglas debates shaped their opinion of Lincoln. His speeches and opinions on slavery were widely known, which is why he was selected by the Republican party in the first place.
“South Carolinians declared their secession, in Madison’s words, “at pleasure”.”
Save for the fact that the Republican platform sought to abolish slavery unilaterally, without the consent of the states.
“True, but the fact is that hundreds of thousands of former Democrats’
Not so. The only northern states to switch were Illinois, Indiana and Pennsylvania. The Democrat party went from 50 percent vs divided Whig opposition in both Indiana and Pennsylvania in 1856 to 48 percent in Indiana and 42 in Pennsylvania. Their vote share increased in Illinois.
Indiana (1856) 235k voters, 119k democrats.
Indiana (1860) 272k voters, 132k democrats.
Pennsylvania (1856) 460k voters, 230k democrats.
Pennsylvania (1860) 476k voters, 208k democrats.
So in all actuality, looking at just PA and IN, the Democrat vote dropped just 9k.
“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.”
The first democrat was Jackson - presidents prior to Jackson weren’t democrats. Van Buren was a Whig, as were WHH, Tyler, Buchanan, Fillmore, and Taylor.
“Sorry, but I have to go by the numbers we have”
Bullshit.
Your numbers are wrong.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html
States:
1,855,993 for Lincoln
1,381,944 for Douglas
851,844 for Breckinridge
590,946 for Bell
“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.”
So Lincoln started the war. Thank you.
“So Lincoln had to do something.”
And Lincoln chose war.
“Resupplying Federal troops on Federal property is not an act of war.”
Violating the territory of a sovereign nation is an act of war. Had Lincoln saught the permission of the state legislature, he would not have given a causus belli. If the state said no, Lincoln had a choice - to violate the territorial integrity and deliver the munitions, or to cede the fort. He chose to trigger war.
“But firing on those troops and seizing that property is, and that was the Confederacy’s choice”
After secession the fort was no longer federal territory.
“Wrong. Lincoln was willing to use force to protect Federal property.”
After secession it wasn’t federal territory anymore.
“Seriously, FRiend, what kind of a question is that?”
It’s a yes or no question.
“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%.”
And the South did not want to be represented by a man who didn’t even run in their states. Who can blame them for that? Lincoln didn’t need their participation. So why should they be governed by him?
“engineered by Southern Fire-Eaters who critically damaged the long-term Democrat majority.”
Then why wasn’t Lincoln on the ballots in the South? He is running for president of the united states, not ‘president of the North’.
“All references to secessionists seizures of Federal property refer to Federal property within the seceding states.”
That’s not what you said earlier. You said that the confederacy seized property in every state. Now we get the truth - which is that the confederacy only did this in states that voted to leave.
“In most cases we’re talking about facilities built with Federal funds and manned by Federal employees, especially military.”
And paid for by the South through their taxes and tariffs. Did Lincoln compensate the South for the property in the North to which Southern tariffs contributed? No? Then neither is the South compelled to do the same.
“No state ever paid a tax to the Federal Government”
Bullshit. South Carolina invoked nullification against tariffs that Jackson imposed on her cotton industry. If the North is not returning the tariffs that they collected from southern enterprises, then the south is entitled to their just compensation.
“Nor does any citizen ever, on renouncing his citizenship, have the right to see his previously paid taxes returned to him.”
And nor does Lincoln have the right to seize their assets and cut them off.
“to seize by force property owned by the Federal government.”
And neither did the federal government have the power to seize property owned by the South.
“What precisely is your problem with that?”
My problem is that said that the South was not provoked by the North. That is not true. The South was provoked by an act of terrorism against her prior to the war, by John Brown, who was executed for killing 5 southern civilians. Aided and abetted by the north who supplied him his guns and weaponry.
“Neither did President Lincoln, ever.”
Yes, he did.
“There was no constitutional issue.”
The right of a state to secede was a constitutional issue. Decided by Lincoln over the battlefield rather than through the court of public opinion and the state legislatures via constitutional amendment. What is established through force cannot be upheld forever through force. It has no legal legitimacy. There were other options. Lincoln did not choose them.
“Lincoln had no choice after the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.”
Lincoln had many choices. He could have chosen to cede the fort.
“Nonsense, and you know it.”
That’s what secession entails, the transference of the state from being a state to membership within the confederacy. As soon as the state voted to leave the property in the state became the property of the state and not the federal government.
The federal government cannot keep bound the will of a people for liberty should they choose to leave.
“First of all, no law requires Federal property to change ownership just because of a new government.”
It does when the state elects new representatives and chooses to leave.
“So the Federal Government had every legal right to protect its property.”
Not on confederate soil.
“Second, remember the British maintained forts on US Great Lakes territory”
The US never owned the great lakes territory until it was purchased from Great Britain after the revolutionary war. The revolutionaries claimed ownership of British forts and bases all through the 13 colonies, on the same basis that the confederacy did the same.
“So Union resupplies to Federal forts were only cause for war if the Confederacy wanted them to be.”
The union had no right to violate confederate territory without permission.
“Possibly, temporarily, but most likely the Confederacy would simply have picked a fight somewhere else.”
Why would they want to pick a fight with the Union? They simply wanted their freedom.
“The fact is those secessionists were aggressive, belligerent”
Aggressive? Which is why they fought a 4 year defensive war against a foe with superior arms, manpower and resources?
If the South were the aggressor, why is it we do not see New York city burning and the Ohio river destroyed? No, the aggressor is clear - the North started the war, and at a cost of 750k men, finished it.
“Indeed, Lincoln was willing to give up Fort Sumter”
But he did not, when that choice was fully his. He could have averted war. He chose war over the alternatives that were available to him.
“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?”
So you’re saying that destruction of property is ok when you do it. I see. So Lincoln did not fight the war to ‘preserve property.’ He fought it to subjugate the South.
“The territory of the Confederacy did not include Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Arizona or Colorado.”
It included New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arizona, Missouri, West Virginia, Maryland and Kentucky at various points in time. Kansas was disputed territory. Colorado was not a state at the time. Pennsylvania remains the only state of the Union that saw any fighting. And they had one major battle, at Gettysburg.
“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.”
Arizona was claimed by the south and voted to secede. Same as the rest of the confederacy. Kansas, like Kentucky, voted eventually to stay but was considered to be disputed territory.
Colorado was never touched. The Confederates lost at Raton and never entered Colorado.
“Maryland was a Union state, never voted to secede.”
Maryland was the first part of the union invasion of the South. Lincoln put Maryland under martial law after the Baltimore riots and suspended Habeaus corpus.
When Maryland attempted to vote on secession, Lincoln had the legislature arrested. Well, only the secessionists were elected.
Delaware was also occupied in the same fashion. The opening salvos of the civil war was Lincoln’s occupation of the border states.
“West Virginia officially became a Union state in 1863, but Confederate forces continued to fight there until the end of the war.”
The constitution explicitly states that no state can be broken apart unless that state agrees to it. West Virginia was illegally split from Virginia and was confederate territory.
“Kentucky was always a Union state, never voted to secede, but Confederate forces invaded and fought there throughout the war.”
Nonsense. After Maryland was occupied, Kentucky declared it’s neutrality and seceded from the Union to form the republic of Kentucky under Magoffin. When Lincoln occupied it, it was brought back into the fold.
“Missouri never voted to secede, was always a Union state”
Missouri voted to secede, and send ordinances of secession to the Union. Missouri stated that they would not leave, unless the Union were to invade the south. The Union did just that, so Missouri left. It wasn’t until the Union sacked the capital of Missouri, that Missouri was occupied by the Union.
As for Oklahoma, one of the most famous confederate generals was from there - Stand Waitie - the Native tribes from Oklahoma stood with the Confederacy all through the war.
Kansas was never legally admitted into the Union until after the war - the Wyandotte constitution was only passed by the Senate after the Southern Senators left. Ergo, it was disputed territory who’s status was only settled after the end of the war.
“Prior to the Confederacy’s declaration of war, no Southern soldier had been directly killed by any Union force”
Yes, they were, in Maryland.
“Lincoln’s publicly announced policy that war could only come if the Confederacy started it.”
And like Wilson he kept the US out of war by starting one.
“Sorry, but none of those states ever voted for secession”
All of the ones you list did - save Kansas who was only admitted after the Southern Senators left - meaning that the bill admitting Kansas did not have quorum.
“all helped to defeat the Confederacy when it attempted to invade them.”
True - after the Union occupied them.
“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).”
Again, New Mexico voted to leave the Union, as did Oklahoma. Kentucky voted to leave but remained neutral. Missouri voted to leave - and were defeated by the Union late in 1861 when Jefferson city was occupied. Kentucky followed later in 1862.
West Virginia was admitted in 1862 through an illegal partition of Virginia.
Gettysburg is the only time the South ever touched a Union state in four years of war.
Like I said, 1st Manassas was the invasion of the confederacy by the Union, which was their first defeat in the civil war. The union won the opening moves of the civil war by occupying Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Arizona, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia and, most importantly, Kentucky. That’s 7 states right there.
Then they continued their invasion hoping to end the war within the year by defeating the confederacy in Virginia. They failed. After that the frontlines stabilized. The union eventually conquered Tennessee the following year, and after that, the frontlines collapsed, and they were able to defeat the entire confederacy.
Lincoln’s most successful prosecution of the civil war was in the very first year.
Until the end of the year, the Union had forces in only one Confederate State, Virginia, and there the Union was defeated.
“That was far from the war’s first battle.”
Uh, First Manassas was fought in July of 1861. It was, by far the largest battle fought up to that time.
“Yes, Confederate military death percentages were as high as many countries in WWII, but the civilian number is highly dubious.”
Seeing as you can’t get Manassas in the right state or year, your opinion has little merit.
“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.”
Applying those same assumptions to the first and second world war, leads to a statistical comparison that is useful.
“Any actual list of names of Southern civilians killed by Union soldiers is minuscule to nonexistent.”
Bullshit.
“it is still not comparable to WWII.”
Even London under the Blitz was not as bad. Sure, the eastern front vs Russia and all of Germany was worse - but the Civil war was much harsher on the South than the first world war was on Europe. Given the 50 year difference in technology - the Union really did try to devastate the south. When they couldn’t win on the battlefield, they won through scorched earth.
The Confederates also invaded Vermont from Canada, raiding ane robbing a bank at St. Albans. Canada refused to treat the robbers as criminals because of a determination that they acted under military orders from the pretended confederacy, though Canada did return part of the money stolen. The unreturned funds appear to have been cached by the robbers before they got to Canada, so the robbers had a touch of ‘free enterprise’ to go along with their orders.