REMEMBERING MR. LINCOLN

Powerline ^ | 12 Feb 2024 | Scott Johnson

[Rummyfan]

Today is the anniversary of the birth of America’s great or greatest president, Abraham Lincoln. As a politician and as president, Lincoln was a profound student of the Constitution and constitutional history. Perhaps most important, Lincoln was America’s indispensable teacher of the moral ground of political freedom at the exact moment when the country was on the threshold of abandoning what he called its “ancient faith” that all men are created equal.

In 1858 Lincoln attained national prominence in the Republican Party as the result of the contest for the Senate seat held by Stephen Douglas. It was Lincoln’s losing campaign against Douglas that made him a figure of sufficient prominence that he could be the party’s 1860 presidential nominee.

At the convention of the Illinois Republican Party in June, Lincoln was the unanimous choice to run against Douglas. After declaring him their candidate late on the afternoon of June 16, the entire convention returned that evening to hear Lincoln speak. Accepting the convention’s nomination, Lincoln gave one of the most incendiary speeches in American history.

Lincoln electrified the convention, asserting that the institution of slavery had made the United States “a house divided against itself.” Slavery would either be extirpated or become lawful nationwide, Lincoln predicted, provocatively quoting scriptural authority to the effect that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Demonstrating how it “changed the course of history,” Harry Jaffa calls it “[t]he speech that changed the world.”

[woodpusher]

Lincoln's income tax was certainly not considered unconstitutional at the time, and one way we can understand this is to remember that the first proposed wartime income tax came from our Father of the Constitution, during Pres. Madison's War of 1812.

Another way to think about it is to read the Constitution and the relevant U.S. Supreme Court opinion. Your blather questions whether the 16th Amendment had any purpose whatever.

The first federal income tax was instituted during the Civil War. It was unconstitutional, your mealy mouthed excuses notwithstanding.

Article 1, sec 2:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Article 1, section 9:

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Prior to the 16th Amendment, any unapportioned direct tax was unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment was not meaningless surplusage.

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Your entire train of "logic" involving the "law of necessity" was rejected by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court.

The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court stated:

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false....

Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 120-21 (1866)

The Law of Necessity is false, and each and every provision of the Constitution applies equally in war and in peace, and none of its provisions may be suspended during any claimed exigency of government.

This applied equally to the unconstitutional assumption of authority to suspend habeas corpus, the unconstitutional delegation of authority to suspend habeas corpus to military officers, and the unconstitutional failure to issue the required return of the writ of habeas corpus.

[x]

If voting had to be unanimous, that would explain why Georgia and South Carolina’s objections carried the day. Jefferson doesn’t tell us what the delegates from the other Southern states thought. I believe it was suggested here that Rhode Island may also have objected, and possibly Connecticut did too. In any case, the necessity of holding the country together (before it had even become a country) meant that one can’t draw conclusions about what the majority of delegates thought about slavery or the slave trade. That it wasn’t considered the moment for such a manifesto didn’t mean that delegates didn’t have serious moral qualms about slavery.

Subsequent debate about the Declaration involved who the document applied to. The original focus of discontent in the colonies had been on what the colonists saw as the King’s violation of their rights as freeborn Englishment. They had the example of England’s previous revolutions as an example. That the Founders invoked a general principle meant that the principle could be applied to and invoked in other cases. Maybe they had to turn to natural law principles in order to justify independence, but that doesn’t matter. They had opened the door to different interpretations of what “men” or “a people” were. They had also opened the door to the idea that revolution and violent wars of independence would always be justified, though I don’t believe that they intended that.

[woodpusher]

Lincoln sent a fleet of warships with the intent of provoking the Confederates into attacking either the ships or the fort. He cleverly allowed the public orders to go out that the ships would attack, but secretly issued orders which would absolutely prevent them from attacking.

There were multiple orders, some pertained an attack on Fort Pickens in Florida, and some pertained to an attack on Fort Sumter. Orders also went to Capt. Mercer of the Navy's Sumter mission flagship. Capt. Mercer found himself with no ship and no mission.

There can be no doubt that Lincoln waited for the Senate to adjourn and began a war as soon as it was out of session. He did not call them back into session until July 4, 1861 when the war was a fait accompli. He then delivered a message to the special session of congress where he engaged in terminological inexactitude.

Within eight days of taking office, orders of March 12, 1861 issued from the Lincoln administration to reinforce Fort Pickens and thereby violate the armistice that was in effect. These orders to Army Captain Vogdes were delayed until after the Senate adjourned on March 28, 1861 and then delivered by USS Crusader on March 31, 1861. Capt. Vogdes delivered them to Navy Captain Adams on April 1, 1861. Capt. Adams refused to comply with the orders.

There is an interesting sequence of events.

3/04/1861 — Lincoln inaugurated.

• 3/12/1861 — Orders signed for Army Capt. Vogdes to reinforce and hold Fort Pickens. Capt. Vogdes is aboard ship off Pensacola. Delivery of these orders is delayed until March 31 to Capt. Vogdes, who in turn delivers them to Navy Capt. Adams on April 1.
• 3/28/1861 — The Senate adjourned.
• 3/29/1861 — Lincoln issues directive: "I desire that an expedition, to move to sea be got ready to sail as early as the 6th of April next, the whole according to memorandum attached..." The memo called for 300 seamen with one month's stores, and 200 soldiers with one year's stores.
• 3/31/1861 — Orders issued 3/12/1861 are delivered to Capt. Vogdes. Delivery took either three weeks from the date of issuance or three days from the date of adjournment of the Senate.
• 4/01/1861 — Orders issued to Capt. Vogdes are shown to Navy Capt. Adams. Capt. Adams refuses to assist Capt. Vogdes and informs SECNAV Welles of the orders.
• 4/01/1861 — Orders issued by Winfield Scott, countersigned by Abraham Lincoln, to Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown to reinforce and hold Fort Pickens.
• 4/01/1861 — Orders issued by Abraham Lincoln to Lt. D.D. Porter to assume command of any steamer available.
• 4/01/1861 — Orders issued by Abraham Lincoln to Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard to "fit out the Powhatan without delay. Lieutenant Porter will relieve Captain Mercer in command of her. She is bound on secret service; and you will under no circumstances communicate to the Navy Department the fact that she is fitting out."
• 4/05/1861 — SECNAV Welles, still unaware of the Lincoln intrigue, issues orders to Navy Capt. Mercer, "You will leave New York with the Powhatan in time to be off Charleston bar, 10 miles distant from and due east of the light house on the morning of the 11th instant, there to await the arrival of the transports with troops and stores. The Pawnee and Pocahontas will be orders to join you there, at the time mentioned, and also the Harriet Lane, etc.
• 4/11/1861 — "April 11th at 9 P. M. the Brooklyn got under way and stood in toward the harbor; and during the night landed troops and marines on board, to reinforce Fort Pickens." Log of U.S.S. Supply, night of April 11, 1861. (O.R. Navy, Ser 1, Vol. 4, p. 210)
• 4/12/1861 — Fort Sumter fired upon.
• 4/17/1861 — Lt. Porter arrived in Florida with Powhatan.

- - - - - - - - - -

SOURCES:

Courtesy of Cornell University Library, Making of America Digital Collection.

Title: Official records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion; Series I - Volume 4: Operations in the Gulf of Mexico (November 15, 1860 - June 7, 1861); Operations on the Atlantic Coast (January 1, 1861 - May 13, 1861); Operations on the Potamac and Rappahannock Rivers (January 5, 1861 - December 7, 1861)
Author: United States. Naval War Records Office
Collection: Books: Civil War Official Histories

Title: The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies; Series 1 - Volume 1
Author: United States. War Dept., John Sheldon Moody, Calvin Duvall Cowles, Frederick Caryton Ainsworth, Robert N. Scott, Henry Martyn Lazelle, George Breckenridge Davis, Leslie J. Perry, Joseph William Kirkley
Collection: Books: Civil War Official Histories

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875
Senate Journal

- - - - - - - - - -

BREAKING THE ARMISTICE -- MARCH 12, 1861
One Month Before Events at Fort Sumter

Official Records, Army, Series 1, Vol 1, Chap. 4, p. 360:

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
Washington, March 12, 1861.

Captain VOGDES, U. S. Army,
On board U. S. sloop-of-war Brooklyn, lying off Port Pickens:

SIR: At the first favorable moment you will land with your company, re-enforce Fort Pickens, and hold the same till further orders. Report frequently, if opportunities present themselves, on the condition of the fort and the circumstances around you.

I write by command of Lieutenant-General Scott.

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
E. D. TOWNSEND,
Assistant Adjutant-General.

Initiating delivery of these orders was delayed until after the Senate adjourned on March 28, 1861. They were delivered via USS Crusader to Capt. Vogdes, off Pensacola, on March 31, 1861, and by Capt. Vogdes to Navy Capt. Adams on April 1, 1861. Capt. Adams refused to comply with the orders issued by General Scott, asserting it would violate a binding agreement and "would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war."

- - - - - - - - - -

THE SENATE ADJOURNED
March 28, 1861

SENATE JOURNAL, March 25, 1861:

Resolved, That the President be requested, if, in his opinion, not incompatible with the public interest, to communicate to the Senate the dispatches of Major Robert Anderson to the War Department during the time he has been in command at Fort Sumter.

SENATE JOURNAL, March 27, 1861:

The following message was received from the President of the United States, by Mr. Nicolay, his Secretary:

To the Senate of the United States:

I have received a copy of a resolution of the Senate, passed on the 25th instant, requesting me, if, in my opinion, not incompatible with the public interest, to communicate to the Senate the dispatches of Major Robert Anderson to the War Department during the time he has been in command of Fort Sumter.

On examining the correspondence thus called for, I have, with the highest respect for the Senate, come to the conclusion that, at the present moment, the publication of it would be inexpedient.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

Washington, March 26, 1861.

END of the Senate Journal for March 28, 1861:

Mr. Powell, from the committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States and inform him that, unless he may have any further communication to make, the Senate is now ready to close the present session by an adjournment, reported that they had performed the duty assigned them, and that the President replied that he had no further communication to make.

Mr. Foster submitted the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Senate will adjourn without day at four o'clock this afternoon.

The Senate proceeded by unanimous consent to consider the said resolution; and, having been amended on the motion of Mr. Hale, it was agreed to as follows:

Resolved, That the Senate do now adjourn without day.

Whereupon

The President pro tempore declared the Senate adjourned without day.

- - - - - - - - - -

THE NEXT DAY LINCOLN GOT BUSY.

Lincoln did not fail to obtain Congressional approval because Congress was not in session, he waited until Congress adjourned and commenced to initiate a war.

Official Records, Army, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 227:

Order from the President of the United States to the Secretary of the Navy, regarding cooperation with the War Department for active service.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,
March 29, 1861.

Sir: I desire that an expedition, to move by sea, be got ready to sail as early as the 6th of April next, the whole according to memorandum attached; and that you cooperate with the Secretary of War for that object. Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.

Hon. SECRETARY NAVY.

The memorandum attached called for:

From the Navy, three ships of war, the Pocahontas, the Pawnee and the Harriet Lane; and 300 seamen, and one month's stores.

From the War Department, 200 men, ready to leave garrison; and one year's stores.

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 107-8:

April 1, 1861 by General Scott
April 2, 1861 approved by Abraham Lincoln
To: Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown, U.S. Army

You have been designated to take command of an expedition to reinforce and hold Fort Pickens in the harbor of Pensacola. You will proceed to New York where steam transportation for four companies will be engaged; — and putting on board such supplies as you can ship without delay proceed at once to your destination. The object and destination of this expedition will be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known.

Signed: Winfield Scott
Signed approved: Abraham Lincoln

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 232:

Letter from Secretary of War to G. V. Fox, esq., assigning him to command expedition for the relief of Fort Sumter.

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, April 4, 1861.

Sir: It having been determined to succor Fort Sumter, you have been selected for this important duty. Accordingly, you will take charge of the transports provided in New York, having the troops and supplies on board, to the entrance of Charleston Harbor, and endeavor, in the first instance, to deliver the subsistence. If you are opposed in this you are directed to report the fact to the senior naval officer off the harbor, who will be instructed by the Secretary of the Navy to use his entire force to open a passage, when you will, if possible, effect an entrance and place both the troops and supplies in Fort Sumter. I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War

Captain G. V. Fox, Washington, D. C.

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 232-3:

Instructions from Lieutenant-General Scott, U. S. Army, to Lieutenant-Colonel Scott, U. S. Army, regarding expedition for reenforcement of Fort Sumter.

Confidential.

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, Washington, D. C., April 4, 1861.

Sir: This letter will be handed to you by Captain G. V. Fox, ex-officer of the Navy, and a gentleman of high standing, as well as possessed of extraordinary nautical ability. He is charged by high authority here with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is to reenforce Fort Sumter. To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about 200, to be immediately organized at Fort Columbus, with a competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence. A large surplus of the latter indeed, as great as the vessels of the expedition will take with other necessaries, will be needed for the augmented garrison of Fort Sumter. The subsistence and other supplies should be assorted like those which were provided by you and Captain Ward, of the Navy, for a former expedition. Consult Captain Fox and Major Eaton on the subject, and give all necessary orders in my name to fit out the expedition, except that the hiring of vessels will be left to others. Some fuel must be shipped. Oil, artillery, implements, fuses, cordage, slow matches, mechanical levers, and guns, etc., should also be put on board. Consult also, if necessary (confidentially), Colonel Tompkins and Major Thornton.

Respectfully, yours,

WINFIELD SCOTT.

Lieutenant-Colonel H. L. SCOTT, Aid-de-Camp, etc.

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 110:

April 1, 1861
To Captain H.A. Adams
Commanding Naval Forces off Pensacola

Herewith I send you a copy of an order received by me last night. You will see by it that I am directed to land my command at the earliest opportunity. I have therefore to request that you will place at my disposal such boats and other means as will enable me to carry into effect the enclosed order.

Signed: I. Vogdes, Capt. 1st Artly. Comdg.

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 110:

Captain Adams REFUSED TO OBEY THE ORDER and reported to the Secretary of the Navy as follows: (April 1, 1861)

The instructions from General Scott to Captain Vogdes are of old date (March 12) and may have been given without a full knowledge of the condition of affairs here.

It would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war; and would be resisted to the utmost.

Both sides are faithfully observing the agreement (armistice) entered into by the United States Government and Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase, which binds us not to reinforce Fort Pickens unless it shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reinforce it.

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 110-11:

The Secretary of the Navy issued a CLASSIFIED response to Capt. Adams:

April 6, 1861

Your dispatch of April 1st is received. The Department regrets that you did not comply with the request of Capt. Vogdes. You will immediately on the first favorable opportunity after receipt of this order, afford every facility to Capt. Vogdes to enable him to land the troops under his command, it being the wish and intention of the Navy Department to co-operate with the War Department, in that object.

Signed: Gideon Welles, Secty. of the Navy

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 210:

April 11, 1861 — USS Supply—- Ships Log

April 11th at 9 P.M. the Brooklyn got under way and stood in toward the harbor; and during the night landed troops and marines on board, to reinforce Fort Pickens.

- - - - - - - - - -

Lincoln relieved Captain Mercer of command of the USS Powhatan. This was coordinated with Secretary of State Seward. Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles was not informed.

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 109:

Order of the President of the United States to Captain Mereer, U. S. Navy, detaching him from the command of U S. S. Powhatan.

WASHINGTON CITY, April 1, 1861.

Sir: Circumstances render it necessary to place in command of your ship, and for a special purpose, an officer who is duly informed and instructed in relation to the wishes of the Government, and you will therefore consider yourself detached; but in taking this step the Government does not intend in the least to reflect upon your efficiency or patriotism; on the contrary, have the fullest confidence in your ability to perform any duty required of you.

Hoping soon to be able to give you a better command than the one you now enjoy, and trusting that you will have full confidence in the disposition of the Government toward you, I remain,

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Captain SAMUEL MERCER, U. S. Navy.

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 108:

April 1, 1861
To: Lt. D.D. Porter, USN

You will proceed to New York and with least possible delay assume command of any steamer available.

Proceed to Pensacola Harbor, and, at any cost or risk, prevent any expedition from the main land reaching Fort Pickens, or Santa Rosa.

You will exhibit this order to any Naval Officer at Pensacola, if you deem it necessary, after you have established yourself within the harbor.

This order, its object, and your destination will be communicated to no person whatever, until you reach the harbor of Pensacola.

Signed: Abraham Lincoln
Recommended signed: Wm. H. Seward

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 108:

April 1, 1861
Telegram
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard

Fit out Powhatan to go to sea at the earliest possible moment, under sealed orders. Orders by confidential messenger go forward tomorrow.

Signed: Abraham Lincoln

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 109:

April 1, 1861
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard

You will fit out the Powhatan without delay. Lieutenant Porter will relieve Captain Mercer in command of her. She is bound on secret service; and you will under no circumstances communicate to the Navy Department the fact that she is fitting out.

Signed: Abraham Lincoln

April 5, 1861 - Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles sends orders to Captain Mercer of the USS Powhatan, not knowing about the secret orders of Seward/Lincoln. Lincoln relieved Captain Mercer four days before, on April Fool's Day.

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 235:

Confidential instructions from the Secretary of the Navy to Captain Mercer, U. S. Navy, commanding U. S. S. Powhatan, regarding expedition to Fort Sumter.

Confidential.] NAVY DEPARTMENT, April 5, 1861.

Sir: The U. S. steamers Powhatan, Pawnee, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane will compose a naval force, under your command, to be sent to the vicinity of Charleston, S. C., for the purpose of aiding in carrying out the objects of an expedition of which the War Department has charge.

The primary object of the expedition is to provision Fort Sumter, for which purpose the War Department will furnish the necessary transports. Should the authorities at Charleston permit the fort to be supplied, no further particular service will be required of the force under your command, and after being satisfied that supplies have been received at the fort the Powhatan, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane will return to New York and the Pawnee to Washington.

Should the authorities at Charleston, however, refuse to permit or attempt to prevent the vessel or vessels having supplies on board from entering the harbor or from peaceably proceeding to Fort Sumter, you will protect the transports or boats of the expedition in the object of their mission, disposing of your force in such manner as to open the way for their ingress, and afford, so far as practicable, security to the men and boats, and repelling by force, if necessary, all obstructions toward provisioning the fort and reenforcing it; for in case of resistance to the peaceable primary object of the expedition a reenforcement of the garrison will also be attempted.

These purposes will be under the supervision of the War Department, which has charge of the expedition. The expedition has been intrusted to Captain G. V. Fox, with whom you will put yourself in communication, and cooperate with him to accomplish and carry into effect its object.

You will leave New York with the Powhatan in time to be off Charleston bar, 10 miles distant from and due east of the light-house, on the morning of the 11th instant, there to await the arrival of the transport or transports with troops and stores. The Pawnee and Pocahontas will be ordered to join you there at the time mentioned, and also the Harriet Lane, which latter vessel has been placed under the control of this Department for this service. On the termination of the expedition, whether it be peaceable or otherwise, the several vessels under your command will return to the respective ports, as above directed, unless some unforeseen circumstances should prevent.

I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,

GIDEON WELLES,
Secretary Navy.

Captain SAMUEL MERCER,
Commanding U. S. S. Powhatan, New York.

April 6, 1861 — Lt. Porter took the Powhatan and sailed, pursuant to secret orders of Seward/Lincoln. Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles found out and had a fit. The Powhatan was the flagship for the Navy operation going to Fort Sumter. Seward/Lincoln took the flagship, and the troops intended to reinforce Fort Sumter, and sent them off on an Atlantic cruise, eventually showing up near Pensacola, Florida.

In response to the Secretary of the Navy's fit, the administration had Seward send a meaningless telegram to Lt. Porter aboard the flagship (for the U.S. Navy mission to Fort Sumter) Powhatan. A telegram from the Secretary of State lacks authority to countermand a direct order of the President.

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 112:

Give the Powhatan up to Captain Mercer. Seward.

A dispatch boat caught up with Powhatan and delivered Seward's message.

Lt. Porter responded to Seward:

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 112:

I received my orders from the President, and shall proceed and execute them.

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 112:

Before leaving, Lt. Porter instructed the Navy Yard officials,

Detain all letters for five days.

Storms and boiler problems allegedly delayed Powhatan, but she arrived disguised and flying English colors. When the Powhatan, sort of detached from the Navy and under the State Department, arrived off Florida, it was stopped dead in its tracks by the U.S. Navy which stood in her way and refused to permit her to proceed.

Lt. Porter filed this report, April 21, 1861:

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 122:

Report of Lieutenant Porter, U. S. Navy, commanding U. S. S. Powhatan, of the arrival of that vessel off Pensacola, and giving reasons for not having entered that harbor.

U.S.S. Powhatan, Off Pensacola Bar, April 21, 1861.

Sir: I enclose a correspondence which will explain why I am not inside of the harbor. Will you please to lay it before the President? I arrived here a few hours behind the Atlantic, my passage having been retarded by heavy gales, head winds, and defective boilers. I had disguised the ship so that she deceived those who had known her, and after nearing our squadron was standing in (unnoticed) when the steam gunboat Wyandotte, lying alongside the Atlantic, commenced making signals to me, which I did not answer, but stood on. The steamer then put herself in my way, and Captain Meigs, who was on board, hailed me and I stopped. In twenty minutes more I should have been inside or sunk. Captain Meigs delivered me Colonel Browns letter dated April 17, 1861, which will explain why I was not permitted to proceed. ...

Official Records, Army, Series 1, Vol 1, Chap 4, page 368-70:

APRIL 3, 1861.

Honorable WM. H. SEWARD, Secretary of State:

DEAR SIR: We expect to touch at Key West, and will be able to set things in order there and give the first check to the secession movement by firmly establishing the authority of the United States in that most ungrateful island and city. Thence we propose to send dispatches under cover to you. The officers will write to their friends, understanding that the package will not be broken until after the public has notice through the newspapers of our success or defeat. Our object is yet unknown on board, and if I read the papers of the eve of our departure aright our secret is still a secret in New York. No communication with the shore, however, will be allowed.

* * *

The dispatch and the secrecy with which this expedition has been fitted out will strike terror into the ranks of rebellion. All New York saw, all the United States knew, that the Atlantic was filling with stores and troops. But now this nameless vessel, her name is painted out, speeds out of the track of commerce to an unknown destination. Mysterious, unseen, where will the powerful bolt fall? What thousands of men, spending the means of the Confederate States, vainly beat the air amid the swamps of the southern coast, and, filling the dank forts, curse secession and the mosquitoes!

* * *

God promised to send before his chosen people an advance-guard of hornets. Our constant allies are the more efficient mosquitoes and sand-flies. At this time the republic has need of all her sons, of all their knowledge, zeal, and courage.

Major Hunt is with us, somewhat depressed at going into the field without his horses. His battery of Napoleon guns, probably the best field guns in our service, is to follow in the Illinois; but the traitor Twiggs surrendered his horses to the rebels of Texas, and the company of well-trained artillerists finds itself, after eight years of practice in that highest and most efficient arm, the light artillery, going into active service as footmen. They, too, feel, the change deeply.

* * *

I am, most respectfully, your obedient servant,

M. C. MEIGS,

Captain of Engineers.

Official Records, Army, Series 1, Vol. 1, page 368:

U. S. TRANSPORT ATLANTIC,
[New York,] April 6, 1861 -- 2½ p. m.

Hon. WM. H. SEWARD, Secretary of State:

DEAR SIR: By great exertions, within less than six days from the time the subject was broached in the office of the President, a war steamer sails from this port; and the Atlantic, built under contract to be at the service of the United States in case of war, will follow this afternoon with 500 troops, of which one company is sappers and miners, one a mounted battery. The Illinois will follow on Monday with the stores which the Atlantic could not hold.

While the mere throwing of a few men into Fort Pickens may seem a small operation, the opening of a campaign is a great one.

Unless this movement is supported by ample supplies and followed up by the Navy it will be a failure. This is the beginning of the war which every statesman and soldier has foreseen since the passage of the South Carolina ordinance of secession. You will find the Army and the Navy clogged at the head with men, excellent patriotic men, men who were soldiers and sailors forty years ago, but who now merely keep active men out of the places in which they could serve the country.

If you call out volunteers you have no general to command. The general born, not made, is yet to be found who is to govern the great army which is to save the country, if saved it can be. Colonel Keyes has shown intelligence, zeal, activity, and I look for a high future for him.

England took six months to get a soldier to the Crimea. We were from May to September in getting General Taylor before Monterey. Let us be supported; we go to serve our country, and our country should not neglect us or leave us to be strangled in tape, however red.

Respectfully,
M. C. MEIGS.

As noted above in the ship's log for the USS Supply, Union forces started landing near Fort Pickens during the night of April 11, 1861 before shots were fired at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861.

Official Records, Army, Series 1, Vol. 1, page 191:

CHAP. I.] CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.—UNION

No. 64. FORT SUMTER, March 6, 1861.

(Received A. G. O., March 9.)

Col. S. COOPER, Adjutant-General U. S. Army:

COLONEL: I have the honor to report that a very large re-enforcement was landed last night at Cummings Point and bivouacs near No. 10. This morning it was marched out of sight, around the point of the island. Yesterday the three other guns were mounted in No. 10, thus completing its armament of four heavy pieces. They continued working yesterday at the places mentioned in my report, and are still so occupied today. A party has also been at work this morning on the Fort Moultrie glacis. Everything indicates activity and determination.

I had the honor to present in No. 58* my opinion of the strength of the army which will be necessary to force an entrance into the harbor. The presence here, as commander, of General Beauregard, recently of the U. S. Engineers, insures, I think, in a great measure the exercise of skill and sound judgment in all operations of the South Carolinians in this harbor. God grant that our country may be saved from the horrors of a fratricidal war!

I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.

* No. 58, and several other of Anderson’s letters, not found.

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 90:

Order from Lieutenant-General Scott, U. S. Army, to Captain Vodges,
U. S. Army, to reenforce Fort Pickens.

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
Washington, March 12, 1861.

SIR: At the first favorable moment you will land with your company, reenforce Fort Pickens, and hold the same till further orders.

Report frequently, if opportunities present themselves, on the condition of the fort and the circumstances around you.

I write by command of Lieutenant-General Scott.

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

E.B. TOWNSEND,
Assistant Adjutant-General.

Captain I. VOGDES,
First Artillery, U. S. A., on board Sloop of War Brooklyn,
Off Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Fla.

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 107-8:

Order of General Scott, U. S. Army, to Colonel Brown, U. S. Army, appointed to command Department of Florida, regarding reenforcement of Fort Pickens.

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY

Washington, April 1, 1861.

SIR: You have been designated to take command of an expedition to reenforce and hold Fort Pickens, in the harbor of Pensacola. You will proceed with the least possible delay to that place, and you will assume command of all the land forces of the United States within the limits of the State of Florida. You will proceed to New York, where steam transportation for four companies will be engaged, and, putting on board such supplies as you can ship, without delay proceed at once to your destination. The engineer company of sappers and miners; Brevet Major Hunt’s Company M, Second Artillery; Captain Johns’s Company C, Third Infantry; Captain Clitz’s Company E, Third Infantry, will embark with you in the first steamer. Other troops and full supplies will be sent after you as soon as possible.

Captain Meigs will accompany you as engineer, and will remain with you until you are established in Fort Pickens, when he will return to resume his duties in this city. The other members of your staff will be Assistant Surgeon John Campbell, medical staff; Captain Rufus Ingalls, assistant quartermaster; Captain Henry F. Clarke, assistant commissary of subsistence; Brevet Captain George L. Hartsuff, assistant adjutant-general, and First Lieutenant George T. Balch, ordnance officer.

The object and destination of this expedition will be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known. The naval officers in the Gulf will be instructed to cooperate with you, and to afford every facility in their power for the accomplishment of the object of the expedition, which is the security of Fort Pickens against all attacks, foreign and domestic. Should a shot be fired at you, you will defend yourself and your expedition at whatever hazard, and, if needful for such defense, inflict upon the assailants all the damage in your power within the range of your guns.

Lieutenant-Colonel Keyes, military secretary, will be authorized to give all necessary orders and to call upon the staff department for every requisite material and transportation, and other steamers will follow that on which you embark, to carry reenforcements, supplies, and provisions for the garrison of Fort Pickens for six months. Captain Barry’s battery will follow as soon as a vessel can be fitted for its transportation. Two or three foot companies will embark at the same time with the battery. All the companies will be filled up to the maximum standard, those to embark first from the recruits in the harbor of New York. The other companies will be filled, if practicable, with instructed soldiers. You will make Fort Jefferson your main depot and base of operations. You will be careful not to reduce too much the means of the fortresses in the Florida Reef, as they are deemed of greater importance than even Fort Pickens. The naval officers in the Gulf will be instructed to cooperate with you in every way in order to insure the safety of Fort Pickens, Fort Jeff and Fort Taylor. You will fully communicate with them for this end, and will exhibit to them the authority of the President herewith.

The President directs that you be assigned to duty from this date according to your brevet rank in the Army.

With great confidence in your judgment zeal,and intelligence, I remain, respectfully,

WINFIELD SCOTT.

Brevet Colonel HARVEY BROWN, U. S. Army,
Washington, D. C.

APRIL 2, 1861.

Approved:
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

[Enclosure.]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, April 1, 1861. All officers of the Army and Navy to whom this order may be exhibited will aid by every means in their power the expedition under the command of Colonel Harvey Brown, supplying him with men and material, and cooperating with him as he may desire.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 109-110

Report of Captain Adams, U. S. Navy, senior officer present off Pensacola, transmitting communication from Captain Vogdes, U. S. Army, regarding coopperation for the protection of Fort Pickens.

U.S. FRIGATE SABINE,
Off Pensacola, April 1, 1861.

SIR: I have the honor to inclose a copy of a letter addressed to me by Captain Vogdes, U. S. Army, who is here in command of some troops sent out in January last to reenforce the garrison of Fort Pickens. I have declined to land the men as Captain Vogdes requests, as it would be in direct violation of the orders* from the Navy Department under which I am acting.

The instructions from General Scott to Captain Vogdes are of old date (March 12) and may have been given without a full knowledge of the condition of affairs here. They would be no justification to me. Such a step is too important to be taken without the clearest orders from proper authority. It would most certainly be viewed as a hostile act, and would be resisted to the utmost. No one acquainted with the feelings of the military assembled under General Bragg can doubt that it would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war. It would be a serious thing to bring on by any precipitation a collision which may be entirely against the wishes of the Administration. At present both sides are faithfully observing the agreement entered into by the U. S. Government with Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase. This agreement binds us not to reenforce Fort Pickens unless it shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reenforce it. I saw General Bragg on the 30th ultimo, who reassured me the conditions on their part should not be violated. While I can not take on myself under such insufficient authority as General Scott’s order the fearful responsibility of an act which seems to render civil war inevitable, I am ready at all times to carry out whatever orders I may receive from the honorable Secretary of the Navy.

In conclusion, I beg you will please send me instructions as soon as possible, that I may be relieved from a painful embarrassment.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

H.A. ADAMS,
Captain, Senior Officer Present.

Hon. GIDEON WELLES,
Secretary of the Navy, Washington, JJ. C.

[Enclosure.]

U. S. FRIGATE SABINE,
Off Pensacola, Fla., April 1, 1861.

SIR: Herewith I send you a copy of an order* received by me last night. You will see by it that I am directed to land my command at the earliest opportunity. I have therefore to request that you will place at my disposal such boats and other means as will enable me to carry into effect the enclosed order.

Yours, etc., I. VOGDES
Captain, First Artillery, Commanding.

Captain H. A. ADAMS,
Commanding Naval Forces off Pensacola.

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Volume 4, page 117

Letter from Captain Vogdes, U. S. Army, commanding Fort Pickens, Fla., to Captain Adams, U. S. Navy, senior officer present off Pensacola, regarding violation of armistice.

FORT PICKENS, FLA., April 14, 1861.

DEAR CAPTAIN: General Bragg has just sent me a verbal message by his adjutant-general, Colonel Wood, requesting to know why the armistice had been violated by reenforcing Fort Pickens. In reply I stated that I never had been a party to any armistice, but that in landing from the Brooklyn and taking the command of Fort Pickens I had acted under orders from the General Government. He then stated that he was directed by General Bragg to demand from the late commander, addressing himself to Lieutenant Slemmer, why it had been violated on his part. He answered that he obeyed the orders of his Government. No further official communication passed between us.

Your obedient servant,

I. VOGDES,
Captain, First Artillery, Commanding Fort Pickens.

Captain H. A. ADAMS,
Commanding Naval Forces off Pensacola.

Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Volume 4, page 117

Letter from Brigadier-General Bragg, C. S. Army, commanding Confederate troops near Pensacola, to Captain Adams, U. S. Navy, senior officer present off Pensacola, regarding violation of armistice.

HEADQUARTERS TROOPS CONFEDERATE STATES,
Near Pensacola, Fla., April 14, 1861.

SIR: Your communication of the 13th instant, announcing the re-enforcement of Fort Pickens, was received by me this evening. How you could suppose I was aware of that fact, and that it was done by “order of the U. S. Government,” I do not understand, when it was accomplished under cover of the darkness of night and in violation of a solemn compact. I only wish I could construe the orders of your Government as a justification of the act.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

BRAXTON BRAGG,
Brigadier-General Commanding.

Captain H. A. ADAMS,
Senior U. S. Naval Officer off Pensacola.

- - - - -

[FLT-bird]

Other historians disagree: "Civil War historian Mark E. Neely Jr. suggests that "there seems to be no difference in the arrest rate in those periods when the Confederate Congress refuse to authorization suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and those periods was authorized. ... civilian prisoners trickled into Confederate military prisons whether the writ of habeas corpus was suspended or not."[41]""

Mark Neely is a well known Lincoln apologist. Hell, McPherson is one of the major PC Revisionists in Academia. Got one from somebody credible saying that? I'm betting no.

While the "tyrant" Jefferson Davis imprisoned no fewer than 2,687 Southerners with or without suspension of habeas corpus.

Yes, some clearly were arrested under the same circumstances in the CSA. Still, it was far fewer than in the Union.

If we allow for a number of missing Confederate records, these percentages are relatively the same when compared to Union or Confederate populations.

Translation: If we just make up a bunch of BS I have no evidence for..........."

I gave you the link, you can read it yourself, there was an actual Confederate congress Declaration of War on May 6, 1861.

No they didn't. I gave you a link.

Prior to Confederate Declaration of War, there was no Union "invasion" of the Confederacy and after the declaration, every Union citizen who gave "aid and comfort" to Confederates was guilty, by Constitution's definition, of treason.,/p>

There was no Confederate Declaration of War and as even Lincoln's treasure secretary and later Chief Justice of the Supreme Court admitted, secession is not treason.

Chase's argument here is spurious, specious and politically motivated, though after the war was over, perhaps for the best. Chase's key nonsense is in claiming, "secession is not rebellion", since it was not secession alone which caused Civil War, but rather secession mixed with rebellion -- the Confederate assault on Fort Sumter -- which turned a political argument into a military war. And after the Confederate Declaration of War on May 6, 1861, the entire issue was mute.

You are spewing BS here. Secession is not treason. Every state has the right to secede. There was no Confederate Declaration of War.

Naw, it wasn't a SCOTUS ruling, it was only Crazy-Roger Taney babbling nonsense as a circuit court judge. SCOTUS never ruled on it during the war.

LOL! Every Supreme Court Justice who doesn't rule the way you like has bad reasoning, is crazy, etc etc according to you.

This source says: " Even so, the lowest estimate is 13,535 arrests from February 15, 1862, to the end of the war. [3] At least 866 others occurred from the beginning of the war until February 15, 1862. Therefore, at least 14,401 civilians were arrested by the Lincoln administration.

That's at the extremely low end of the estimates. The estimates run from 13,000 to 38,000.

If one takes the population of the North during the Civil War as 22.5 million (using the 1860 census and counting West Virginia but not Nevada), then one person out of every 1,563 in the North was arrested during the Civil War.[4]" Do the math for Confederate arrests and the results come out pretty much the same.

Only if one buys the extreme low estimate of jailed political dissenters in the Union that is most convenient for you.

So you repeatedly claim, but without ever providing a verifiable primary source for your claims.,/p>

I told you where you could find it.

And what about the others? The answer is, he didn't shut them down. They remained free to continue publishing.

LOL! He "only" censored 100. He's an icon of constitutional rights. (nevermind the chilling effect shutting down 100 in a country of 22.5 million would have)

The US Post Office, however, did not deliver their treasonous materials.

"treasonous" according to you is any disagreement with government policy.

Nor is there any evidence of Confederate authorities ever allowing publishers treasonous to them to operate.

There's no evidence of the CSA's government shutting down and censoring a bunch of newspapers.

Not at the time.

Yes at the time and any time after the Bill of Rights was ratified.

The numbers of dead only exceeded, perhaps, by those at Andersonville, Georgia. Worth noticing that Andersonville's death toll of 13,000 happened over just 15 months of operation, or nearly 900 per month on average. By contrast, at Camp Douglas, the official death toll of 4,415 happened over 39 months of operation, or just over 100 per month average. So, even if we contemplate your higher speculation of 6,000 total deaths, it's still just 150 per month, compared to nearly 900 per month at Andersonville, Georgia.

Its not my speculation. Even the Chicago paper published that 1500 names of Confederate Prisoners who were enrolled at Camp Douglas but who were never released from there and who were not officially reported as having died. Gee, they disappeared. What does anybody think happened to them?

Furthermore there was no deliberate cruelty and murder on the anything like the scale of Camp Douglas at Andersonville.

Furthermore, there was no shortage of food or medicine in the Union as there was in the CSA. The Union prisoners at Andersonville were not denied food out of cruelty. Famine stalked the land and some of the guards starved too.

As for the treatment of POW's as a whole: 26,436 Confederates died in Northern prisons and 22,576 Union soldiers died in Southern prisons. Considering the fact that the South held approximately fifty thousand more prisoners, the death rate in Northern prisons was about twelve percent whereas the death rate in Southern prisons was roughly eight percent. Again, there was no shortage of food and medicine in the Union. The deaths of POWs there were deliberate.

There is no evidence the "Lincoln administration" committed any crime against Minnesota Native Americans.

outright lie.

The root cause appears to be a two-month delay in Federal payments to reservation Indians, possibly from corrupt agents, accompanied by local merchants' refusal to extend credit to starving Indians. Nothing in the tragic events there suggest that Lincoln was somehow personally responsible.

More lies. The Lincoln administration refused to pay them the money they were owed so they could buy food after they were starved because UF federal government agents were corrupt and stole the food provided to them. The "trials" given to those publicly hanged were a mockery. The tribes were then ethnically cleansed and some were deliberately starved again.

If you want a rough equivalency, we could personally blame Jefferson Davis for the Lawrence, Kansas massacre in August, 1863. What sense would that make?

No we couldn't. Davis didn't have control over the Missouri Guerillas AND the raid on Lawrence Kansas was retaliation for the Kansas Redlegs' sacking of Osceola, Missouri first.

[FLT-bird]

Whatever the Treaty of Paris may or may not have recognized in 1783 did not last beyond the new US Constitution ratified in 1788.

The Treaty of Paris recognized the sovereignty of each of the 13 colonies individually. The states did not surrender their sovereignty when they ratified the US Constitution. Once again, this is a lie on your part not supported by any of the writings at the time and not supported by numerous SCOTUS decisions right up to the present day which recognizes the sovereignty of the states.

If it were true that South Carolina in 1860 had "sovereign territorial waters" to defend, then you might expect at least a SC Coast Guard or Navy, but of course there was none.

South Carolina like the rest of the Confederate states had only recently seceded and had not had time to construct a navy yet.

South Carolina's territorial waters were the responsibility of Federal government, not South Carolina.

While South Carolina was in the US. Once it seceded that was no longer the case.

But not one ever did on April 11, 1861.

They had already invaded South Carolina's sovereign territory and were threatening to do so again with a heavily armed fleet of warships.

Perhaps, but not one of those ships ever "invaded" South Carolina's "sovereign territorial waters".

But others already had and this fleet of warships was sent specifically to invade South Carolina's territory as the South Carolinians well knew.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"It does not stand to reason that only 2 out of 13 slave states would object to language that portrays them as bad.?"

It does when we have proof that they objected to slavery under the King's watch, in context of the totality of what was said in that clause.

You keep trying to ignore that the veto is a part of the text. And in that, the language portrays those states better than any of the others. In other words, there is no "portrays them as bad" - it flatly does not exist. What you're doing is promoting a complete fabrication.

"You are pinning too much significance on what Jefferson said."

Maybe for those two specific states, yes. But the evidence is not solely about what Jefferson said. You are pinning too much significance on what Jefferson said, not me. I happen to think the colonies who made legislative attempts speaks a little louder. Jefferson just puts a voice to it all that's high profile enough that you can't help but be cornered into at least addressing it - because it's real.

To that extent you misunderstand in total Jefferson's role in this discussion. You can't ignore Jefferson, but had it been, say, Stephen Hopkins in the topic, well, he's low profile enough that you could easily just brush off the whole thing.

And it still stands as an open question as to why is this so important to you that you’ll go to such great lengths. You could've just went and looked at some original sources in less time than this. Heck, there are historians who have written it - if, albeit in their usual left wing back-handed manner.

Why work so hard against real documentable events directly related to our founding?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln sent a fleet of warships with the intent of provoking the Confederates into attacking either the ships or the fort.
He cleverly allowed the public orders to go out that the ships would attack, but secretly issued orders which would absolutely prevent them from attacking."

You have it totally wrong.
There was nothing "clever" about it, since what Lincoln told SC governor Pickens directly is exactly what was in Lincoln's orders to his ship captains -- no first use of force in resupplying Fort Sumter.

Of course, in your own warped and twisted mind, you've converted Lincoln's orders against first use of force into order to use force and even to attack Confederates.

You even call that "clever", but in reality, all the "cleverness" is inside your own brain, having nothing to do with the reality of April 1861.

In reality, as Jefferson Davis himself announced to CSA Gen. Bragg on April 3, 1861, Davis intended to start Civil War at Forts Sumter and Pickens, regardless of what Lincoln did or didn't do.

And the reasons why are perfectly obvious to anybody not wearing Lost Cause blinders against truth -- only war would bring Virginia into the Confederacy and with Virginia, all of the Upper South, possibly Border South states too.

Because of that, Jefferson Davis would have been a complete fool -- at least in the short term -- not to start Civil War at Fort Sumter, regardless of what Lincoln did or didn't do.

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "The first federal income tax was instituted during the Civil War.
It was unconstitutional, your mealy mouthed excuses notwithstanding."

According to woodpusher in 2024, the Civil War income tax was unconstitutional thus making any other opinions, "mealy mouthed excuses".

But a temporary wartime income tax was first proposed by the Father of the Constitution, Pres. Madison, to help pay for the War of 1812.
Madison's proposal did not pass Congress because it was rendered unnecessary by the 1814 Treaty of Ghent.
It was not at that time declared "unconstitutional".

A temporary wartime income tax was next proposed by the Lincoln administration during the Civil War and this time did pass Congress.
It was not at that time declared "unconstitutional".

In 1894 Progressive Democrats in Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act including a peace-time income tax, signed into law by Democrat Pres. Cleveland.
In 1895 SCOTUS, in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., ruled that income taxes must be apportioned, but such apportioning was considered impractical, thus making non-apportioned income taxes unconstitutional after 1895 and before the 1916 16th Amendment.

Of course, you are free to define "mealy mouthed excuses" however you wish, but I read this history to say that prior to the 1895 SCOTUS ruling, it was not considered unconstitutional for Congress to pass income tax laws, especially under conditions of wartime emergencies.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "In any case, you have provided some useful information on the topic, and I see this as a refreshing change from your usual method of posting massive amounts of irrelevant information. :)"

That's obviously a case of mistaken identity -- you're confusing me with woodpusher.

😂

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher quoting: "You will leave New York with the Powhatan in time to be off Charleston bar, 10 miles distant from and due east of the light house on the morning of the 11th instant"

Notice that 10 miles east means to be outside South Carolina's "sovereign territorial waters".

woodpusher: "Lincoln did not fail to obtain Congressional approval because Congress was not in session, he waited until Congress adjourned and commenced to initiate a war."

There is no requirement for a president to seek congressional approval to resupply or reinforce Union troops in Union forts.
It's the equivalent today to sending resupplies to, for example, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, despite the Cu-Coms' objections.

woodpusher quoting: "...to the entrance of Charleston Harbor, and endeavor, in the first instance, to deliver the subsistence.
If you are opposed in this you are directed to report the fact to the senior naval officer off the harbor, who will be instructed by the Secretary of the Navy to use his entire force to open a passage,"

Exactly, no first use of force, as with any other peacetime mission.

woodpusher quoting Scott, April 4: "He [Fox] is charged by high authority here with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is to reenforce Fort Sumter."

Those orders to Fox were written to say reinforce Ft. Sumter, if necessary.

woodpusher quoting Capt. Adams: "You will see by it that I am directed to land my command at the earliest opportunity."

This refers to Ft. Pickens at Pensacola, Florida, not Ft. Sumter, SC.

woodpusher quoting Capt. Adams regarding Ft. Pickens @April 1, 1861: "Both sides are faithfully observing the agreement (armistice) entered into by the United States Government and Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase, which binds us not to reinforce Fort Pickens unless it shall be attacked or threatened.
It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reinforce it."

And yet, at precisely this time, April 3, Jefferson Davis himself was ordering his on-site commander, CSA Gen. Bragg, to attack Fort Pickens, Pensacola, and promising Bragg whatever forces he might need for that.

As I have often quoted here before:

"The case of Pensacola, [Ft. Pickens], then is reduced [to] the more palpable elements of a military problem and your measures may without disturbing views be directed to the capture of Fort Pickens and the defence of the harbor.
You will soon have I hope a force sufficient to occupy all the points necessary for that end.
As many additional troops as may be required can be promptly furnished.'
[Jefferson Davis to Braxton Bragg, 3 Apr 1861]"

woodpusher quoting orders to Capt. Mercer: "The primary object of the expedition is to provision Fort Sumter, for which purpose the War Department will furnish the necessary transports.
Should the authorities at Charleston permit the fort to be supplied, no further particular service will be required of the force under your command, and after being satisfied that supplies have been received at the fort the Powhatan, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane will return to New York and the Pawnee to Washington."

Right, no first use of force, just as Lincoln had informed SC Gov. Pickens.

The majority of quotes on woodpusher's post #183 relate to Fort Pickens at Pensacola, Florida, not Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor.
And, yet again, the important point about Fort Pickens is that Jefferson Davis had already ordered CSA Gen. Bragg to assault and take the fort when he was ready.

The important points about both Forts Sumter and Pickens are that Jefferson Davis considered it an "advantage" if he could maneuver Lincoln into firing the first shots, but not entirely necessary due to "other considerations".

"There would be to us an advantage in so placing them [Lincoln] that an attack by them [Lincoln] would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison [Forts Sumter or Pickens] that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations."
Davis to Bragg, April 3, 1861

So we could easily argue that it was Davis who "maneuvered" Lincoln, not the other way around.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Mark Neely is a well known Lincoln apologist.
Hell, McPherson is one of the major PC Revisionists in Academia.
Got one from somebody credible saying that?
I'm betting no."

I'm betting you have no data which contradicts the point Neely made -- that numbers of Confederate political arrests did not change whether Jefferson Davis was operating under lawful habeas corpus suspensions or not.
Nor have you contradicted my math which says that relative to populations Confederate political arrests were roughly the same as the Union's.

I'm also betting you will never explain to us how Confederate political arrests under suspended habeas corpus are not "tyranny", but the same thing in the Union is "tyranny".

FLT-bird: "Yes, some clearly were arrested under the same circumstances in the CSA.
Still, it was far fewer than in the Union."

Relative to populations, it was roughly the same.

FLT-bird: "Translation: If we just make up a bunch of BS I have no evidence for...........""

The existing evidence supports my math that habeas corpus related arrests in the Confederacy were roughly the same as in the Union, relative to populations.
It's a fact there are fewer available Confederate records, so actual numbers may well have been higher.

FLT-bird: "No they didn't. I gave you a link."

You provided no link to prove your claim that there was never a Confederate Declaration of War against the United States.

I provided a link showing the actual Declaration of War on May 6, 1861.

FLT-bird: "There was no Confederate Declaration of War and as even Lincoln's treasure secretary and later Chief Justice of the Supreme Court admitted, secession is not treason."

You can see the actual Confederate Declaration of War yourself, and nobody has claimed that 1861 secession alone was treason.
By the Constitution's definition, treason against the United States consists in:

"levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort".

FLT-bird: "You are spewing BS here.
Secession is not treason.
Every state has the right to secede.
There was no Confederate Declaration of War."

And yet again: secession itself was not considered treason in 1861, but waging war against the United States was, by the Constitution's own definition.
The Confederate Declaration of War against the United States is available for you or anybody else to see.

And even if you resolutely deny there was ever an official Confederate Declaration of War, you cannot deny that Confederates waged Civil War against the United States, beginning in 1861 and ending... well, some of you guys never do give up, do you?

FLT-bird: "LOL!
Every Supreme Court Justice who doesn't rule the way you like has bad reasoning, is crazy, etc etc according to you."

LOL! Crazy-Roger Taney was indeed certifiably lunatic, and the evidence is overwhelming, consisting of, at least:

1. Crazy-Roger's Dred Scott 1857 opinions denying slaves and former slaves citizenship.

2. Crazy-Roger's 1861 circuit court habeas corpus opinion.

3. Crazy-Roger's irrational fears of being arrested, which he never was.

FLT-bird: "That's at the extremely low end of the estimates.
The estimates run from 13,000 to 38,000."

Your high-end number of 38,000 is not justified by any data I've seen.
The number 14,401 seems entirely reasonable to me.

FLT-bird: "I told you where you could find it."

If you had a link you'd provide it, but you don't, which means you're pulling your claims out of thin air.

FLT-bird: "LOL! He "only" censored 100.
He's an icon of constitutional rights. (nevermind the chilling effect shutting down 100 in a country of 22.5 million would have)"

No, I'm saying Lincoln didn't censor or shut down 100 newspapers.
The US Post Office did refuse to deliver those newspapers.

FYI, many years ago, when I was a boy living in California, I was a paper-boy with two different newspaper routes, neither of which used US Post Office services.
So the US Mail's refusal to deliver newspapers, should it happen, was not an issue then.
That's what we're talking about here.

FLT-bird: ""treasonous" according to you is any disagreement with government policy."

According to a NY court ruling at the time.
Treasonous newspapers were not allowed in the Confederacy either.

FLT-bird: "There's no evidence of the CSA's government shutting down and censoring a bunch of newspapers."

I've got four examples:

1. Richmond Examiner's content was carefully curated by Confederate authorities.

2. Charleston Mercury was shut down in 1863 for its criticism of Confederate authorities.

3. Mobile Register's editor, John Forsyth, was replaced by the Confederate government for his lack of loyalty.
   The new editor, Dabney Maury, ensured that the paper adhered to the official line, avoiding criticism of the government.

4. Atlanta Intelligencer was forced to close in 1864 due to its opposition to Confederate conscription policies.

Of course, most Confederate newspapers were loyal to the Confederacy, but those that criticized too much were dealt with by authorities.

FLT-bird: "As for the treatment of POW's as a whole: 26,436 Confederates died in Northern prisons and 22,576 Union soldiers died in Southern prisons."

Those are your numbers.
Here are some different numbers:

"Records indicate the capture of 211,411 Union soldiers, with 16,668 paroled and 30,218 died in captivity.
Of Confederate soldiers, 462,684 were captured, 247,769 paroled and 25,976 died in captivity.
Just over 12% of the captives in Northern prisons died, compared to 15.5% for Southern prisons.[1]"

What those averages conceal is that some camps were much worse than others, so for every truly deadly camp there were others merely uncomfortable.

I see no need to exaggerate conditions either way.

FLT-bird: "outright lie."

Your claim here without evidence is just empty words, meaning nothing.

FLT-bird: "Davis didn't have control over the Missouri Guerillas AND the raid on Lawrence Kansas was retaliation for the Kansas Redlegs' sacking of Osceola, Missouri first."

So, roughly equivalent to Lincoln and the 1862 Dakota War.

1904 painting of Attack at New Ulm, Minnesota, 1862 Dakota War:

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "The Treaty of Paris recognized the sovereignty of each of the 13 colonies individually.
The states did not surrender their sovereignty when they ratified the US Constitution.
Once again, this is a lie on your part not supported by any of the writings at the time and not supported by numerous SCOTUS decisions right up to the present day which recognizes the sovereignty of the states."

No, because we are talking about degrees of sovereignty here, and it is simple fact that after ratification in 1788 under the new US constitution, states were less sovereign than they had been previously.

FLT-bird: "South Carolina like the rest of the Confederate states had only recently seceded and had not had time to construct a navy yet."

Nor did it ever, since that was a function of Federal government.

FLT-bird: "They had already invaded South Carolina's sovereign territory and were threatening to do so again with a heavily armed fleet of warships."

But in fact, they never did, and their orders were not to, so long as Confederates remained peaceful.

And so your whole meme about a Union "war fleet" invading South Carolina's "sovereign territory" is babbling nonsense.
It never happened, nor was it necessary to trigger Jefferson Davis to order Fort Sumter be "reduced" by Confederate artillery.

Davis, by his own confession, intended to start Civil War at Forts Sumter and Pickens regardless of what Lincoln did or didn't do.
And the reasons are not in the least difficult to understand.

[FLT-bird]

I'm betting you have no data which contradicts the point Neely made -- that numbers of Confederate political arrests did not change whether Jefferson Davis was operating under lawful habeas corpus suspensions or not. Nor have you contradicted my math which says that relative to populations Confederate political arrests were roughly the same as the Union's.

Its up to him to prove his claims - not up to me to disprove them.

I'm also betting you will never explain to us how Confederate political arrests under suspended habeas corpus are not "tyranny", but the same thing in the Union is "tyranny".

Strawman alert! I never said that.

Relative to populations, it was roughly the same.

only if you believe a number very close to the extreme low estimate of those jailed without charge or trial or at best trial before military tribunal in the union.

The existing evidence supports my math that habeas corpus related arrests in the Confederacy were roughly the same as in the Union, relative to populations. It's a fact there are fewer available Confederate records, so actual numbers may well have been higher.

Except you have failed to provide any of this supposed "existing evidence"

You provided no link to prove your claim that there was never a Confederate Declaration of War against the United States.

Yes I did. Go back and look. Hell, ask even Google which has a hardcore pro federal government/pro leftist bias.

I provided a link showing the actual Declaration of War on May 6, 1861.

Except that link did not show an actual declaration of war.

You can see the actual Confederate Declaration of War yourself, and nobody has claimed that 1861 secession alone was treason.

Except there was no Confederate Declaration of War and your link did not show any.

By the Constitution's definition, treason against the United States consists in: "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort".

Yes, levying war against the states. That's what Lincoln did.

And yet again: secession itself was not considered treason in 1861, but waging war against the United States was, by the Constitution's own definition.

Waging war against the states is considered treason. But of course, the CSA did not declare war and was only seeking to defend themselves. It was the Lincoln administration which launched a war of aggression against the Southern States.

The Confederate Declaration of War against the United States is available for you or anybody else to see.

The lack of a confederate declaration of war is available for anybody to not see since it never happened. You can query in any number of places though and find out that there was no Confederate Declaration of War.

And even if you resolutely deny there was ever an official Confederate Declaration of War, you cannot deny that Confederates waged Civil War against the United States, beginning in 1861 and ending... well, some of you guys never do give up, do you?

No it didn't. The CSA never sought to rule over the US or any Northern states. They merely sought to defend themselves after being attacked by the Lincoln administration. In an actual civil war, two sides fight for control over the central government. That is not what happened. It was no more a civil war than the 1775-1783 affair was. It was a war of Independence.

LOL! Crazy-Roger Taney was indeed certifiably lunatic, and the evidence is overwhelming, consisting of, at least: Crazy-Roger's Dred Scott 1857 opinions denying slaves and former slaves citizenship. Crazy-Roger's 1861 circuit court habeas corpus opinion. Crazy-Roger's irrational fears of being arrested, which he never was.

LOL! Thanks for proving my point. He made some decisions you didn't like and knew that Lincoln had signed an arrest warrant for him. So you claim he must be "crazy". By the way, a majority of the SCOTUS ruled that way in Dred Scott. Taney was not a majority all by himself.

Your high-end number of 38,000 is not justified by any data I've seen.

it is by some of the sources I've seen.

The number 14,401 seems entirely reasonable to me.

of course it does because its at the extreme low end of the estimates produced.

If you had a link you'd provide it, but you don't, which means you're pulling your claims out of thin air.

Nope! I told you the book that listed it. Feel free to read for yourself.

No, I'm saying Lincoln didn't censor or shut down 100 newspapers. The US Post Office did refuse to deliver those newspapers.

Refusing to deliver papers is effectively censoring them in the same way that denying someone a platform to express their views is censoring them.

FYI, many years ago, when I was a boy living in California, I was a paper-boy with two different newspaper routes, neither of which used US Post Office services. So the US Mail's refusal to deliver newspapers, should it happen, was not an issue then.

Yes it was. It was censorship in a way very similar to the censorship imposed by Big Tech in recent times.

According to a NY court ruling at the time. Treasonous newspapers were not allowed in the Confederacy either.

"Treasonous" was any disagreement with government policy to them. New England elites think the same way today.

I've got four examples: Richmond Examiner's content was carefully curated by Confederate authorities. Charleston Mercury was shut down in 1863 for its criticism of Confederate authorities. Mobile Register's editor, John Forsyth, was replaced by the Confederate government for his lack of loyalty. The new editor, Dabney Maury, ensured that the paper adhered to the official line, avoiding criticism of the government. Atlanta Intelligencer was forced to close in 1864 due to its opposition to Confederate conscription policies. Of course, most Confederate newspapers were loyal to the Confederacy, but those that criticized too much were dealt with by authorities.

It happened in the CSA but much like the arbitrary arrests and suspension of habeas corpus, it happened on nothing like the scale it happened in the Northern States. Newspapers in the Southern states were if anything far more harsh in their criticisms of President Davis than Northern newspapers dared to be of Lincoln.

Those are your numbers. Here are some different numbers: "Records indicate the capture of 211,411 Union soldiers, with 16,668 paroled and 30,218 died in captivity. Of Confederate soldiers, 462,684 were captured, 247,769 paroled and 25,976 died in captivity. Just over 12% of the captives in Northern prisons died, compared to 15.5% for Southern prisons.[1]" What those averages conceal is that some camps were much worse than others, so for every truly deadly camp there were others merely uncomfortable. I see no need to exaggerate conditions either way.

Those are your numbers. What is not mentioned, is that there was no shortage of food or medicine in the Northern states while there was in the Southern States as a result of the naval blockade. As for Andersonville.....

During the amnesty debate in the House of Representatives in 1876, Hill, of Georgia, replying to statements of Blaine, discussed the history of the exchange of prisoners, dwelling on the fact that the cartel which was established in 1862 was interrupted in 1863, and that the Federal authorities refused to continue the exchange of prisoners. "The next effort," he said, "in the same direction was made in January, 1864, when Robert Ould, Confederate agent of exchange, wrote to the Federal agent of exchange, proposing, in view of the difficulties attending the release of prisoners, that the surgeons of the army on each side be allowed to attend their own soldiers while prisoners in the hands of the enemy, and should have charge of their nursing and medicine and provisions; which proposition was also rejected."

Continuing, Mr. Hill said: "In August, 1864, there were two more propositions. The cartel of exchange had been broken by the Federals under certain pretences, and the prisoners were accumulating on both sides to such an extent that Mr. Ould made another proposition to waive every objection and to agree to whatever terms the Federal Government would demand, and to renew the exchange of prisoners, man for man, and officer for officer, just as the Federal Government might prescribe. That proposition was also rejected. In the same month, August, 1864, finding that the Federal Government would neither exchange prisoners nor agree to sending surgeons to the prisoners on each side, the Confederate Government officially proposed, in August, 1864, that if the Federal Government would send steamers and transports to Savannah, the Confederate Government would return the sick and wounded prisoners on its hands without an equivalent. That proposition, which was communicated to the Federal authorities in August, 1864, was not answered until December, 1864, when some ships were sent to Savannah. The record will show that the chief suffering, the chief mortality at Andersonville, was between August and December, 1864. We sought to allay that suffering by asking you to take your prisoners off our hands without equivalent, and without asking you to return a man for them, and you refused."

The death toll at Andersonville was indeed high but that was due to shortages of medicine and food. Confederate authorities were not wantonly cruel. They tried to alleviate the lack of medicine by offering to let the Union send its own doctors with medicine to take care of them. The offer was refused. They offered to let the Union pick up the particularly sick and wounded POWs and that offer was ignored for months while they were dying.

the high death tolls of Confederates in Union POW camps like Camp Douglas, Hellmira and Point Lookout have no such excuse. They could have been adequately fed, housed and provided with adequate medical care. The federal government just didn't want to. That is in addition to widespread reports of deliberate murder and cruelty I've quoted before.

Your claim here without evidence is just empty words, meaning nothing.

Precisely what I say about your claims.

So, roughly equivalent to Lincoln and the 1862 Dakota War.

Except Confederate authorities in Richmond had no control over the guerilla war in Missouri.

[FLT-bird]

No, because we are talking about degrees of sovereignty here, and it is simple fact that after ratification in 1788 under the new US constitution, states were less sovereign than they had been previously.

No, they were just as sovereign. They merely delegated some of their sovereign rights to the newly created federal government for as long as they saw fit.

Nor did it ever, since that was a function of Federal government.

The CSA did what it could to build a navy but it had to start from scratch while defending itself against invasion so it didn't have that many ships.

But in fact, they never did, and their orders were not to, so long as Confederates remained peaceful.

But in fact they already had invaded South Carolina's sovereign territory and their orders were to invade South Carolina's sovereign territory to reinforce the illegal squatters in Fort Sumter.

And so your whole meme about a Union "war fleet" invading South Carolina's "sovereign territory" is babbling nonsense.

it is your denial which is laughable nonsense.

It never happened, nor was it necessary to trigger Jefferson Davis to order Fort Sumter be "reduced" by Confederate artillery.

It was sent with orders to invade South Carolina's sovereign territory after previous federal ships had already invaded South Carolina's sovereign territory.

Davis, by his own confession, intended to start Civil War at Forts Sumter and Pickens regardless of what Lincoln did or didn't do.,/p>

No he didn't. He merely intended to evict the illegal squatters as any leader of any country would.

And the reasons are not in the least difficult to understand.

Agreed. No country is going to allow another to hold forts on its territory especially not ones in one of its principle harbors.

[jmacusa]

Secession is illegal under the 14th. Amendment.

[jmacusa]

These Rebs ought to be paying you for these history lesson Joe.

Give them a surprise quiz sometime.

Extra credit to the Lost Causer who can correctly give the first name of Jeff Davis’s wife.

[FLT-bird]

Secession is illegal under the 14th. Amendment.

The 14th amendment was never lawfully passed.

[jmacusa]

14 Amendment passed by the Senate June,6,1866 .

June 8, 1863,`4th. Amendment passed.

Ratified July 7, 1868.

[FLT-bird]

14 Amendment passed by the Senate June,6,1866 . June 8, 1863,`4th. Amendment passed. Ratified July 7, 1868.,/p>

Not lawfully.

[woodpusher]

This refers to Ft. Pickens at Pensacola, Florida, not Ft. Sumter, SC.

You have an astounding command of the obvious.

Maybe you forget about the amazing adventure of Lt. Worden. Lincoln seemed quite reluctant to address that one.

LINCOLN LIED TO CONGRESS ABOUT LT. WORDEN

In his message of July 4, 1861 to the Special Session of Congress, seeking to justify his illegal actions and to obtain Congressional forgiveness, Lincoln lied repeatedly. He gave false information and he withheld information. His lies and omissions were relevant and material.

July 29, 1861.

The Secretary of the Navy, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, requesting the President of the United States to "communicate to the Senate (if not incompatible with the public interest) the character of the quasi armistice to which he refers in his message of the 4th instant, be reason of which the commander of the frigate Sabine refused to transfer the United States troops into Fort Pickens in obedience to his orders; by whom and when such armistice was entered into; and if any, and what, action has been taken by the Government in view of the disobedience of the order of the President aforesaid," has the honor to report that it is believed the communication of the information called for would not, at this time, comport with the public interest.

LET'S SEE ANOTHER STONEWALL

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 30, 1861.

To the SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 23rd instant requesting information concerning the imprisonment of Lieutenant John J. Worden [John L. Worden], of the U. S. Navy, I transmit a report from the Secretary of the Navy.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

[Inclosure.]

NAVY DEPARTMENT, July 29, 1861.

The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

The Secretary of the Navy, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate of the 23rd instant requesting the President of the United States to inform the Senate "under what circumstances Lieutenant John J. Worden [John L. Worden], of the U. S. Navy, has been imprisoned at Montgomery, Ala., whether he is still in prison, and whether any and if any what measures have been taken by the Government of the United States for his release," has the honor to report that it is believed the communication of the information called for would not at this time comport with the public interest.

Respectfully submitted.

GIDEON WELLES.

[Lincoln special message to Congress July 4, 1861] An order was at once directed to be sent for the landing of the troops from the Steamship Brooklyn, into Fort Pickens. This order could not go by land, but must take the longer, and slower route by sea.

[Lincoln special message to Congress July 4, 1861] To now re-inforce Fort Pickens, before a crisis would be reached at Fort Sumter was impossible

First Lincoln lied about his knowledge of, and the nature of, the existing Armistice. Then he lied that a message to Captain Adams could only go by sea. Here he stonewalls the Congressional inquiry about Lt. Worden. The Official Records quoted below document that Lt. Worden carried a message to Captain Adams and did so by traveling overland, by train, to Pensacola, where he lied to the Confederate officials to obtain a pass.

First, Lt. Worden saw Lieutenant Slemmer, of Fort Pickens. Then he visited with Capt. Adams. He then left without checking back in with General Bragg. The Confederates soon became aware of the Union violation of the Armistice and Lt. Worden was captured and held as a prisoner of war.

Lt. Worden filed a report to the Confederate Secretary of War on April 16, 1861. He also filed a report with the U.S. Navy explaining his activities. He filed the latter report in September 1865, after the war was over.

- - - - -

MONTGOMERY, April 12, 1861.

General BRAGG,

Pensacola:

Lieutenant Worden, of U. S. Navy, has gone to Pensacola with dispatches. Intercept them.

L. P. WALKER.

- - - - -

BARRANCAS, April 12, 1861.

Honorable L. P. WALKER:

Mr. Worden had communicated with fleet before your dispatch received. Alarm guns have just fired at Fort Pickens. I fear the news is received and it will be re-enforced before morning. It cannot be prevented. Mr. Worden got off in cars before I knew of his landing. Major Chambers is in the cars. He will watch Mr. Worden's movements. If you deem it advisable, Mr. Worden can be stopped in Montgomery.

BRAXTON BRAGG,

Brigadier-General.

- - - - -

MONTGOMERY, April 12, 1861.

Honorable L. P. WALKER:

Just received the following from our manager in Mobile:

Worden was arrested yesterday and is in the hands of General Bragg.

Very respectfully,

HUBERT.

- - - - -

MONTGOMERY, April 13, 1861.

General BRAGG,

Pensacola:

When you arrested Lieutenant Worden what instructions, if any, did he show you? Did he communicate to you that he had verbal instructions, and, if so, what were they? He is here under arrest, and it is important for you to reply fully.

L. P. WALKER.

- - - - -

PENSACOLA, April 13, 1861.

Honorable L. P. WALKER,

Secretary of War:

Re-enforcements thrown into Fort Pickens last night by small boats from the outside. The movement could not even be seen from our side, but was discovered by a small reconnoitering boat.

BRAXTON BRAGG,

Brigadier-General.

- - - - -

PENSACOLA, April 14, 1861.

Honorable L. P. WALKER:

Captain Adams, commanding the fleet, writes on 13th, just received.

Subsequently to the date of your last letter, as you are probably aware, re-enforcements have been placed in Fort Pickens, in obedience to orders from the United States Government. Lieutenant Worden must have given these orders in violation of his word. Captain Adams executed them in violation of our agreement.

BRAXTON BRAGG.

- - - - -

Honorable L. P. WALKER,

Secretary of War:

Lieutenant Worden assured me he only had a verbal message of pacific nature. The re-enforcement of Pickens was preceded by signal guns from there. What caused it I cannot ascertain. Worden's message may have had no connection with the move. He was in Pensacola when the move was made. Five thousand men here now, and two thousand more coming. Subsistence, forage, and transportation should be hurried. You can now spare the supplies from Sumter, which is ours.

BRAXTON BRAGG,

Brigadier-General.

- - - - -

MONTGOMERY, ALA., April 15, 1861.

Honorable L. P. WALKER,

Secretary of War, Montgomery:

SIR: Very unexpectedly I find myself a prisoner of war at this place. May I be permitted to request that you will do me the kindness to inform me of the grounds upon which I am so detained?

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

JOHN L. WORDEN,

Lieutenant, U. S. Navy.

- - - - -

MONTGOMERY, April 16, 1861.

Honorable L. P. WALKER,

Secretary of War, Montgomery:

SIR: I have the honor to submit the following statement in relation to my recent visit of Pensacola to your attention:

I left Washington City on the morning of April 7, with a communication from the Secretary of the Navy to Captain Adams, of the United States ship Sabine, and was informed by the Secretary that I would have no difficulty in making the communication to Captain Adams under the existing agreement. I arrived at Pensacola on the morning of the 11th instant, announced myself to Mr. LeBaron as an officer of the U. S. Navy, who sent an officer with me to General Bragg. I informed General Bragg that I had come from Washington, and desired to communicate with Captain Adams, of the Sabine. He wrote me a pass authorizing me to go to the Sabine, and upon handing it to me he asked if I had dispatches for Captain Adams. I replied that I had not written ones, but that I had a verbal communication to make to him from the Navy Department. I then asked him if I would be permitted to land on my return towards Washington. He replied that I would, provided Captain Adams or myself did nothing in violation of the agreement existing between them. I then left General Bragg and went to the navy-yard, from whence I embarked for the Wyandotte about 4 o'clock p.m. On reaching her I was informed by her commander that he could not carry me out to the Sabine that night, in consequence of the strong wind and rough sea on the bar.

During that evening Lieutenant Slemmer, of Fort Pickens, came on board, and I had a few moments' social conversation with him. I had no dispatches for him whatever, and I gave him no information as to the nature of the communication which I had to make to Captain Adams. Of course he knew, as did every officer on board, that I came from the Navy Department to communicate with Captain Adams. On the next morning, the 12th instant, while waiting for the sea to subside on the bar, so that the Wyandotte could go out, one of the officers suggested that we should go on shore and take a look at Fort Pickens, to which I assented. We accordingly, about 9 o'clock a.m., landed there, and walked about the ramparts for half an hour, and then returned on board. During my visit to the fort I did not see Lieutenant Slemmer, as he was asleep and I did not desire to disturb him, as I had no object in seeing him, except to pay him the proper visit of courtesy on going within the limits of his command.

At about 10.30 or 11 o'clock a.m. the Wyandotte went out of the harbor and put me on board the Sabine, somewhere near 12 o'clock. I made my communication to Captain Adams, and stated to him what General Bragg had said in relation to the agreement between them. He, nevertheless, gave me a written order to return to Washington as "special messenger," which order you have. Of course I proceeded to obey the order, and was landed by the Wyandotte at Pensacola about 5 o'clock p.m. I was told by Captain Adams that it was not necessary for me to see General Bragg on my return, and therefore I did not stop at his quarters.

I make this statement, ready with the solemnity of an oath to be confirmed. It is made, not with regard to personal safety, or of any consequences that might result to me personally, but purely in defense of my honor as an officer and a gentleman. Several officers in the Confederate service—among them I will mention Captain D. N. Ingraham and Surg. W. F. CarringtonI think I can appeal to with confidence.

I respectfully submit this statement to the consideration of the honorable Secretary of War.

Respectfully, your obedient servant,

JOHN L. WORDEN,

Lieutenant, U. S. Navy.