Please also note the words "peaceful and constitutional" in Article 1.
JCBreckenridge: "Given that support of the north was sufficient to procure the constitutional change, the South had no choice once Lincoln won election on that platform."
Southern Democrats were the nation's dominant political force from the founding of the Republic until beginning at their convention in April 1860 -- when they self-destructed due to Fire-Eaters walking out, refusing to support the Democrat's nominee, and eventually forming their own regional Southern Democrat party.
In all that, Southern Democrats were the initiators, the force of change, and so had a choice in every action they took.
Lincoln's election was simply the inevitable result to the Southern Democrats' political engineering.
JCBreckenridge: "Uh, you need to start looking up the electoral map. VA, TN and KY were democrat in ‘56 and democrat in ‘60."
Sorry FRiend, yes, I granted you the possibility that Wiki somehow got its popular vote counts wrong, and that Democrats actually received more votes than Wiki reports.
I doubt that seriously, but it's always possible.
However, there's no way to accept your claim that Constitutional Union candidate John Bell did not carry the Southern and Border states of Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky.
Wiki cannot possibly be wrong on something that major, so it has to be your mistake -- so go back and recheck your sources.
The 1856 electoral vote:
Results by county:
JCBreckenridge: "So you admit that there is no evidence of voter turnout suppression among the Democrats?
Their vote share went down, even as their total votes went up.
I've seen no evidence of outright voter fraud anywhere in 1860.
I'm saying Democrats self-suppressed their own voters by splitting the party in half and guaranteeing their own defeat.
Then as now, a certain percentage always votes for who they think will win, and those previous Democrat votes were lost in 1860.
Indeed, in those three Southern states (VA, NC, KY) where Constitutional Unionist John Bell won, he did so because Democrats split their votes between Southern Breckenridge and Northern Douglas.
Now that is Democrat voter self-suppression, I'd say.
JCBreckenridge: "You said that their vote totals dropped, and I showed that no, that wasn’t the case at all.
Democrat voters increased in number from 1856 to 1860, and were flat even in the two states that flipped."
I didn't challenge your numbers because they make my case better than mine did -- that in 1860 Democrats had enough voter support to win the election had Southern Fire Eaters not self-destructed their party.
My numbers came from Wikipedia's report on the 1860 election, and since this is a widely read, frequently corrected public source, I suspect it's right and your numbers wrong -- but regardless, my point still stands.
JCBreckenridge referring to Democrats' claim that Thomas Jefferson was the "first Democrat": "And, they would be wrong. Jackson was the first democrat."
Of course, and in most ways, Jefferson was the opposite of a modern Democrat.
However, in terms of this particular discussion -- namely the lock on power of Southerners and Southern sympathizers over Washington, DC -- Jefferson and Jackson belonged to the same party: the Slave Power.
Both were slave-holders and protected slave-holder interests.
JCBreckenridge: "Doesn’t change the fact that Whig presidents can and were elected."
Of course, among the nation's first 15 Presidents, two were elected Whigs -- William Henry Harrison in 1840 and Zachary Taylor in 1848.
Both were slave-holders and supported slavery.
Both died in office, of illness by all accounts, and were succeeded by their VPs, John Tyler and Millard Fillmore.
All the others were Democrats and/or supporters of slavery.
Indeed, possibly excepting the two Adams (neither took any actions against slavery in the South), it's fair to say that Lincoln was the first openly anti-slavery president elected.
That's why the Slave-Power ruled in Washington, DC.
JCBreckenridge: "*sigh*. Whigs controlled the presidency with Harrison/Tyler, Taylor/Fillmore."
It's extraordinarily important to remember that Whigs were not anti-slavery.
Indeed the two (and only two) elected Whig Presidents, Harrison (1840) and Taylor (1848) were both slave-owners.
That's why the Slave-Power ruled in Washington, from the founding of the Republic until the election of Abraham Lincoln, in 1860.
JCBreckenridge: "From 1840-1860, they were in power for 8 years. Hardly shut out.
From 1840 onwards, non democrat parties dominated.
I'll say it again, more slowly:
Of the six presidents before Democrat Andrew Jackson, only the two Adams were not slave-owners and neither of them took any actions as president against Southern slavery.
Of the seven elected presidents from Jackson through Buchanan (Lincoln's predecessor), only two, Harrison and Taylor, were not Democrats, and both of those were slave-owners.
On slave-owner Whig Harrison's death in office, slave-owner John Tyler became president, and on slave-owner Taylor's death in office, Dough-Faced New Yorker Millard Fillmore filled out his term -- and served long enough to support expansion of slavery in the territories, and the pro-slavery Compromise of 1850.
Franklin Pierce, elected in 1852, was a Dough-Faced Northern Democrat who supported the expansion of slavery into the West, and even in the Ostend Manifesto for the conquest of Cuba!
James Buchanan, elected in 1856, was another Dough-Faced Northern Democrat, who strongly supported both the pro-slavery Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision and the pro-slavery Kansas Lecomption constitution.
JCBreckenridge: "As for congressional representation: 27th, 28th, 30th, 34th, 36th, that’s precisely half had non-democrat majorities."
Not quite. First remember that Whigs were not all anti-slavery, and there were many Southern Whigs, i.e., Henry Clay:
27th Congress 1841 to 1843 Whig majorities both houses, Whig President Harrison/Tyler, passed the "Black Tarriff" of 1842.
28th Congress 1843 to 1845 Democrats controlled the House, shrinking Whig majority in Senate, Whig President Tyler, admitted Florida as a slave-state, annexed Texas.
29th Congress 1845 to 1847, Democrats controlled both Houses, Democrat President Polk, admitted Texas slave, Iowa Free, declared war on Mexico, Walker Tarriff reduced rates from 32% to 25%.
30th Congress 1847 to 1849, Democrats controlled Senate, Whigs controlled House by shrinking margin, Democrat President Polk, ended Mexican-American War.
31st Congress 1849 to 1851, Democrats controlled both Houses, pro-slavery Whig Presidents Taylor / Fillmore, pro-slavery Compromise of 1850 and Fugitive Slave Law, California admitted as free-state.
32nd Congress 1851 to 1853, Democrats controlled both Houses, pro-slavery Whig President Fillmore.
33rd Congress 1853 to 1855, Democrats controlled both Houses, Democrat President Pierce who signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act with Popular Sovereignty over slavery.
34th Congress 1855 to 1857, Democrats controlled Senate, cooalition controlled House, pro-slavery Whig President Fillmore.
35th Congress 1857 to 1859, Democrats controlled both Houses, Democrat President Buchanan, Supreme Court's Dred Scott Decision, Minnesota and Oregon admitted as free-states.
36th Congress 1859 to 1861, Democrats controlled Senate, no majority in the House, Democrat President Buchanan, Kansas admitted as free-state, Deep South state conventions all declare secession.
JCBreckenridge: "Except for the other half the time when they weren’t the federal government."
Yes, from 1841 to 1843 -- not exactly "half the time", non-Democrats controlled House, Senate and Presidency.
All the other years, Democrats and/or pro-slavery Whigs controlled one, both or all three branches.
And as its 1857 Dred Scot decision proved, pro-Slavery Democrats also controlled the Supreme Court.
JCBreckenridge: "Obviously your unreferenced numbers are wrong."
I've posted my references before, and here it is again.
My guess is, it is correct and you are mistaken, FRiend. ;-)
JCBreckenridge: "So rather than admit that your numbers were garbage, now you’re using my numbers to prove your case. Sorry. Reread the numbers again - they show, decisively, why Lincoln won."
Nonsense -- I don't know whose numbers are "garbage", obviously I'd suspect yours, but since there's no proof, we have to agree to disagree about it.
However, your numbers support my case, which is that if Democrats had united under strong leadership, many who switched their votes to other parties, including the Bell's Constitutional Union Party could have been persuaded to vote Democrat again.
Republican victory in 1860 began with Democrat self-distruction.
JCBreckenridge: "He didn’t need any southern representation or support to secure the presidency.
Which is why he didn’t even show up on the ballot there."
Republicans started in 1854 with just the anti-slavery faction of the old Whig party -- which btw is why, when you speak of Whigs you have to designate "pro" versus "anti" slavery Whigs.
The Whigs were, in Lincoln's famous phrase from the Bible (Mark 3:25 & others), the "House divided against itself".
So Republicans began in 1854 as a regional anti-slavery party.
I don't know if any effort was made by Republicans to get on ballots in the Deep South, but in one slave-state where they were, Maryland, Republicans got about 3% of the vote.
JCBreckenridge: "Again, you’re ignoring the salient fact that Lincoln didn’t even run in the south. He didn’t bother."
Wrong on all counts.
The fact of no Republicans on Deep-South ballots is not salient, for one thing, because they had never been on Deep-South ballots -- in 1856 for example -- and that did not prevent Democrats from winning the Presidency.
But more to the point, any Republican efforts to get on Deep-South ballots would have been a waste of time, since first: it would have been most difficult and second: where Republicans did get on ballots (i.e., Maryland) they received very few votes.
JCBreckenridge: "What United States?
The United States ceased to exist after the secession of the South.
The Union declared war on the Confederacy, invaded the south and attemped to defeat the confederacy."
Sorry, FRiend, but now you've wandered off into pure fantasy-land stuff. None of that is factual.
The Union certainly did not "cease to exist" just because some Deep-South slave-holders got together and declared their secession.
Nothing in the Constitution provides such a thing.
And in the minds of every US public official who had sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, these declarations of secession were of highly dubious constitutionality at best.
But when combined with numerous acts of obvious rebellion, insurrection and "domestic violence", secession fell into clear categories the Constitution was specifically intended to prevent.
Then, enhanced further by a Confederate Declaration of War on the United States, all doubt is removed from the minds of non-slave holding citizens.
As for who declared war on whom, I've already posted the links and quotes, but here they are again:
The Confederacy's Declaration of War on the United States, May 6, 1861.
Lincoln's First Inaugural address:
"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, Is the momentous issue of civil war.
The government will not assail you.
You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors."
So, FRiend, your claims repeated however many times, over and over, that "The Union declared war on the Confederacy" are still without basis in fact.
JCBreckenridge: "The united states were restored with the surrender of Davis and Lee at Appattomatox."
In some metaphorical sense, perhaps.
Legally, what happened: a rebellion or insurrection as enumerated in the Constitution, was duly suppressed, just as the Constitution requires.
JCBreckenridge: "It’s called casus belli.
When you try to ship munitions into the south against the desires of the south, then yes, you are declaring war.
And that’s exactly what Lincoln chose to do."
In late 1860 and early 1861, even before Lincoln's inauguration, secessionists committed many acts of rebellion, insurrection and war against the United States.
Outgoing President Buchanan chose to ignore these many acts of casus belli, as did incoming President Lincoln.
Both maintained a policy of no reprisals or response to Confederate acts of war against the United States.
These included seizing dozens of Federal assets while Buchanan was president, plus even after Lincoln's inauguration, several forts in Texas and a navy sloop in Alabama.
Finally, in shipping resupplies to Fort Sumter, Lincoln promised South Carolina's Governor Pickens that no reinforcements would land if there was no resistance.
So, the Confederacy's actions in seizing and demanding surrender of Federal forces and properties were all acts of war -- cassus belli.
Lincoln's peaceful mission to resupply Fort Sumter was, in and of itself, not a cassus belli.
So the choice for war was made by the Confederacy.
JCBreckenridge: "Fort Sumpter was in Confederate territory.
He had to enter Confederate territory to delivery munitions.
By entering confederate territory, they were violating the jurisdiction of the South."
Secessionists violated Federal property and threatened Federal officers many times, while President Buchanan and then President Lincoln chose not to respond to these cassus belli.
Lincoln even announced his peaceful intentions to Governor Pickens on sending resupplies to Fort Sumter.
The Confederacy chose to see Lincoln's resupply mission to Fort Sumter as a cassus belli.
The Confederacy first chose war on April 14, and then officially declared war on May 6, 1861.
Those are all facts.
By the way, I've been looking for names of British forts on American territory after the Revolutionary War.
Here is one: Fort MacKinac, Michigan:
- "Before 1763, the French used Fort Michilimackinac on the mainland south shore of the Straits of Mackinac to control the area.
After Treaty of Paris (1763), the British occupied the French fort but considered the wooden structure too difficult to defend.
In 1780/1781, its lieutenant governor Patrick Sinclair constructed a new limestone fort on the 150-foot limestone bluffs of Mackinac Island above the beautiful Straits of Mackinac.
The British held the outpost throughout the war.
After Treaty of Paris (1783), the British did not relinquish the fort to the United States until 1796."
Plus, according to this site, other British outposts in the US were held until after the War of 1812.
JCBreckenridge: "Yes, violation of the territory of a sovereign nation is an act of war."
Not necessarily. It's only a cassus belli if the "violated" government chooses to make it so.
In the cases of British forts, the US government never did so chose.
JCBreckenridge: "Uh, one those forts weren’t in American territory.
Two, they could be resupplied from Canada without crossing into American territory.
Neither of which applied to Fort Sumpter."
Uh, nice try but, no on both counts.
One: those forts were all on US territory as agreed to by the British in the 1783 Treaty of Paris.
And two: it is literally impossible to resupply a fort in US territory without setting foot in the United States.
Three: the British made no claim that these forts were rightfully theirs, they simply refused to evacuate them.
The question then is, what choices did the US government have?
Answer: they could chose war or they could chose peace.
Unlike the Confederacy, our Founding Fathers wisely chose peace.
JCBreckenridge: "Ugh. 1861. If you can’t get the year straight then you aren’t going to get the rationale straight."
Not really a typo, since South Carolina did decide in 1860 to begin forceful seizures of Federal properties in South Carolina, regardless of the consequences for war or peace.
In the case of Fort Sumter, it was only not seized because Federal troops occupied it, so South Carolina demanded its surrender.
President Buchanan said "no" and then attempted to resupply the fort, as a result of which South Carolina committed a cassus belli in firing on a Federal ship.
Buchanan ignored the cassus belli.
JCBreckenridge: "The Union violated the territorial integrity of the south by shipping munitions into the territory of the South, without asking or gaining prior permission."
Not necessarily true, but regardless if true or not, the choice of war or peace still belonged to the Confederacy.
JCBreckenridge: "Had Lincoln chosen to cede the fort then there would not have been any war."
As I've posted before, Lincoln was totally willing to cede the fort, but only in exchange for something valuable, such as a promise by Virginia to remain in the Union.
When Lincoln realized no such promise was forthcoming, he chose to resupply the fort instead.
JCBreckenridge: "As soon as the legislature of South Carolina voted to leave, then yes, it became the property of the state of South Carolina, and by extension the Confederacy."
Under no law, then or now, is that true.
Federal property only becomes legally Confederate property if the Confederacy fights and wins a war to hold it, which is what they decided, very unwisely, to do.
JCBreckenridge: "I loathe that Lincoln did not run in the South.
The constitution only requires 50 percent plus one of the electoral college, and he was able to obtain that without running in the south."
Once you begin to understand that Southern Fire-Eaters self-destructed their long-term-majority Democrat party, thus handing the minority Republicans an otherwise impossible victory, then you will begin to place the blame where it truly belongs, FRiend.
Republicans were a regional minority party who could not have won without major Fire-Eater support.
Question: Why did Fire-Eaters do it?
Answer: because they wanted secession and war, and saw electing Republicans as their quickest way to get those.
JCBreckenridge: "Surely you can agree with me, that a president who refuses to even run in the South is telling them that he does not want their votes or their support in his administration.
Do you think that it is healthy for the president to only represent 50 percent plus one and be elected on 39 percent of the popular vote? (which, BTW, is the lowest percentage of any president?)"
all of the data below comes from here.
As I have explained before: Republicans were a brand new party in 1854.
Their first presidential election (1856) they lost the Union states of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri and California.
That's 94 electoral votes, more than enough for Democrats to win again in 1860 -- if they had not first self-destructed.
map of 1856 electoral college votes:
In 1860 Republicans were on the ballot in Delaware (23%), Maryland (3%), Virginia (1%), Kentucky (1%) and Missouri (10%).
Precisely why Republicans were not on the ballot in other states I can't answer, but I notice that in 1860 no candidate from any of the four parties was on the ballot in all states:
Lincoln's Republicans: not on ballot in 10 of the 11 Confederate states.
Breckenridge's Southern Democrats: not on ballot in four Northern states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York & Rhode Island.
In all other states Breckenridge competed directly against Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas, thus preventing Douglas from winning the majority and guaranteeing a Lincoln victory!
Douglas' Northern Democrats: not on the ballot in New Jersey or New York.
In all other states, Douglas competed directly against Breckenridge and Bell for the anti-Republican vote, thus handing victory on a silver platter to non-Democrats in California (4), Kentucky (12), Oregon (3), Tennessee (12), Virginia (15) and New Jersey by default (4).
Those are 50 more electoral votes squandered away by Fire-Eating Southern Democrats.
By themselves they would not have won the election, but they would have made it a serious horse race, and inspired many more to vote against the "Black Republican" candidate.
On top of all those, Illinois (50.7%), Indiana (51.1%) and Ohio (52.3%) were all carried by Republicans with margins below 53%.
Those states were ripe for picking, if Democrats had been united (Breckenridge ran in all) and put up a serious fight.
And that's another 47 electoral votes, enough to give the united Democrat candidate a blow-out victory.
JCBreckenridge: "39 percent is an indication that there are broad and deep divisions..."
Caused by Fire-Eater Democrats' totally unnecessary self destruction of their long-term majority party.
They did it to themselves, because they wanted to secede.
JCBreckenridge: "You have been making the case that Lincoln was not known to be an abolitionist, and here you are arguing the opposite."
No, no, FRiend. Don't work so hard to misunderstand me.
This is not so difficult.
Lincoln was certainly a well known abolitionist "Black Republican."
But during the campaign he made no statements, and the Republican platform in 1860 contained no planks to harm slavery in the South.
JCBreckenridge: "He cannot be said to govern with the consent of the governed, in the South since he never sought their consent."
As I pointed out above, none of the four candidates for President in 1860 ran in every state.
Indeed, I argue that Breckenridge, Douglas and Bell running against each other in northern states, split and suppressed the anti-Republican vote enough to lose the election.
JCBreckenridge: "Insofar as that property was in southern territory it was never union property. It was no longer federal property once the states seceded."
No law says what you here claim.
JCBreckenridge: "Bullshit. The state legislatures issued ordinances of secession.
Lincoln refused to negotiate.
If Lincoln is unwilling to negotiate a peaceful resolution then the blame lies with him."
Our Founding Fathers began seriously resisting the British crown with the Boston Tea Party in 1773.
The final Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783 -- 20 years later, and even then some British built forts on American territory remained occupied by British forces until after the War of 1812 -- another 30 years later.
That's 50 years from beginning to end.
By contrast, Deep-South secessionists with no actual grievances first called for a convention on November 10, 1860 met on December 17, declared secession on December 20, seized by military aggression Federal Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney on December 27, and committed an act of war by firing on a Federal ship on January 9.
So, where our Founders took 50 years to settle matters with the British, Deep-South secessionists wanted it all done and over with in about 50 days!
Confederate actions were extraordinarily unwise.
JCBreckenridge: "Then the Union has no right to their property in the Confederacy.
They have chosen not to become citizens of the Confederacy, ergo, they have lost their claims."
Lawfully, the Confederacy had no serious claim to Federal property, and they well knew it, which is why they chose to start a war -- to establish by contest of arms "legal rights" they otherwise couldn't prove.
JCBreckenridge: "Yes, states did pay taxes to the federal government. The reason these tariffs were so odious is that it was taxation on the South and only the south."
State governments did not pay those taxes, only individual citizens did.
Of course the South (indeed all farmers) objected to high tariffs on imported goods.
That's why in 1845, when Southern Democrats regained control of Congress and the Presidency, they quickly moved to reduce the "Black Tariff" rates from 32% to 25%.
By 1857 Democrats had further reduced tariffs to around 18%.
But none of these tariffs were paid by states, only by individuals.
JCBreckenridge: "This is why South Carolina invoked nullification in the first place.
Jackson, setting the precedent for Lincoln managed to negotiated a peaceful settlement in modifying the tariff.
He didn’t declare war on South Carolina.
He didn’t crush the state legislature under the power of the federal government. He negotiated, and he succeeded in doing what Lincoln could not."
I'm certain you know that Jackson's words on this subject have been posted many times on these Civil War threads.
In 1830, when a visitor from South Carolina asked if Jackson had any message he wanted relayed to his friends back in the state. Jackson’s reply was:
- "Yes I have; please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach."
JCBreckenridge: "Yes, he seized everything he could possibly get his hands on to prevent it from going to the Confederacy."
OK FRiend, you're on: produce the list of "Confederate properties" allegedly "seized" by President Lincoln before April 14, 1861, when the Confederacy assaulted Fort Sumter and then declared war, on May 6, 1861.
JCBreckenridge: "First, this didn’t happen until after the ordinances were filed, which happened in the Spring of 1861.
Though seeing as you keep putting 1860 for 61, it’s understandable."
In many states throughout the South, some Federal properties were seized even before formal declarations of secession.
In the past I've posted long lists of actual seizures, and could do so again, if necessary, but for just a few examples:
- Alabama voted to secede on January 11, 1861, but already on January 4, it began by seizing the US Arsenal at Mobile Bay.
- Florida voted to secede on January 10, but already on January 6 it began by seizing the US Arsenal at Apalachicola.
- Georgia voted to secede on January 19, waiting until January 22 before seizing Northern ships, then on January 24, the US Arsenal at Augusta.
- Louisiana voted to secede on January 26, but already on January 10 began by seizing the US Arsenal and barracks at Baton Rouge.
- Texas voters did not ratify secession until February 23, but already on February 16, Texas began by seizing the US Arsenal in San Antonio.
- Arkansas voted to secede on May 6, but already on February 8 they began by seizing US Arsenal at Little Rock.
- North Carolina voted to secede on May 20, but already on January 9, they began by seizing Federal Fort Johnson.
- Missouri never did vote to secede, but on May 4 Confederates seized US ordnance stores in Kansas City.
These are only the first seizures of Federal property that I can find for each state.
Many others followed, some of them still before formal declarations of secession.
JCBreckenridge: "Two, they claimed only equipment within the borders of the confederacy, the same thing that the Union did in the North.
Why could the union take control of things in the north, while the south could not do so in the south?
If the north has the right to unilaterally seize forts for their own purpose, than the South has the right to do the same."
From South Carolina's declaration of secession on December 20, 1860 until the Confederacy's Declaration of War on May 6, 1861 the Federal government "seized" nothing belonging to the Confederacy.
After the Confederacy declared war, and launched its forces into non-Confederate states and territories, then the Union responded by destroying the Confederacy.
What's your problem with that?
JCBreckenridge: "Three, not only did Lincoln claim northern war material, he invaded southern states in’61 and seized southern war material from these states.
He did so, despite the concerns over property, because the greater good was to ‘prevent them from being used by the Confederacy."
Totally wrong. Lincoln took no aggressive military moves -- zero, zip, nada -- against the Confederacy until after the Confederacy declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
JCBreckenridge: "Lincoln never fought over private property - he fought to subjugate the South."
After the Confederacy declared war on the United States, the Union fought to utterly destroy the Confederacy as a political and military force.
OK, this seems to be about a third of the way down your post, but will have to stop here.
Will pick up again as time permits with your complaints against John Brown's moldy corpse. ;-)