Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
Do you like Blues?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GVIAypsnh8
Thought you’d enjoy
Being Honest About Abe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NMJKeg4qBQ&feature=related
Lincoln as Hitler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1KBMnj4BJY&feature=related
Is Secession Crazy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kuvj6FIefo&feature=related
Socialism or Secession?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYXwPY3XVq4&feature=related
“Do you like Blues?”
Oh, yeah. Here are some for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9QSaB22ZWg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ0eZiarvEE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjHl-57_I0g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_veQRT7bus&feature=related
And an old Texas song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEIBmGZxAhg&feature=related
You said: "I see nothing in the Constitution that prevents it (unauthorized movement of money between governmental departments).
The entire reason that Lincoln secretly ordered Seward to take money from the cash box at State was that he did not have authorized funds in the military for such an action at Charleston Harbor.
But you say he could use unauthorized money.
Who is right? You or Lincoln?
The secrecy is all in your imagination. Obviously the cabinet knew about it. Who else needed to know?
Thank you for your research! (Citation[s] please? - for my own records, I bookmark historical documentation... )
The 'basic truth' could more correctly be described as, the southern States had a constitutional right to secede (please see the Tenth Amendment, if you are unclear on the concept).
...while the North fought first to preserve the Union...
Fine - care to quote for us the specific constitutional clause, that made the 'Northern fight to preserve the Union' legal? Hmm? (I can e-mail you a copy of the Constitution, if you don't have one - and that's a "written copy," by the way, not an "emotional-how-we-really-wish-it-was-in-retrospect-liberal-copy.") If you can not cite a specific article, section, and clause, I must ask - who were the law breakers?
...and then, while they were at it, to abolish the South's "peculiar institution."
It's blatantly obvious to any one who has read much history, but your "peculiar institution" could have been abolished without killing nearly three quarters of a million Americans. Other countries did it without blood shed...
That's the simple truth of the matter. You need to get over it.
Actually, what you presented is the 'comic book version' of the truth - and if you don't think the federal government had an iron-clad obligation to 'toe the line' when it came to constitutional law in 1861, you can hardly complain (more likely, in your case, whine) if our current federal government ignores the same specific written terms of the same Constitution.
I have to ask: "what's wrong with you people," that you so blatantly ignore the rule of law?
You're welcome. I've enjoyed your posts over the years.
Here is a link to the Burke, Scott, and Seward communications: Official Records, Series 2, Volume 1, page 632.
The link takes you to the first letter/telegram I posted from Colonel Burke. The letters/telegrams I posted are scattered between page 632 and page 641 of that OR volume. They are intermixed with various other communications involving the prisoners, their demands, and responses to the writ that I did not post.
The newspaper articles I posted came from microfilm reels of the two newspapers found at a local library.
Sorry, I'm running many posts behind. And sorry for confusion regarding Fort Pickens.
Fort Pickens was not reinforced by President Buchanan. It was reinforced in April, 1861, by President Lincoln, at the same time he sent reinforcements to Fort Sumter. Indeed, some of the same ships were involved in both operations.
January 8: "Federal troops garrisoning Fort Barrancas, Pensacola, fire warning shots at a group of individuals approaching them."
Rustbucket and others claim these were the "first shots" of the Civil War, but since Florida did not secede until January 10, the approaching individuals threatening federal troops could, by definition, only be an insurrection or rebellion, if even that. So the federal warning shots do not constitute "Civil War," but a simple response to lawlessness.
January 9: "Artillery manned by South Carolina state forces at Fort Moultrie and Morris Island fire on the transport Star of the West as it approaches Charleston Harbor. No damage is inflicted and it returns to New York unscathed. Technically speaking, these are the first shots of the Civil War..."
According to Wikipedia: "The Star of the West was given a warning shot across the bow and turned about to leave the harbor mouth. She was then fired on from Fort Moultrie and hit twice."
Two hits does not really sound like "no damagage" to me.
January 10: "Federal troops under Lieutenant Adam J. Slemmer, garrisoning Fort Barranca at Pensacola, Florida, spike their cannon and relocate offshore to Fort Pickens on nearby Santa Rosa Island. Local troops soon confiscate the navy yard, but Fort Pickens remains in Union hands for the duration of hostilities."
So far as I know, this is the only other act of resistance, outside Fort Sumter, by any Federal officer to the forced seizures of dozens of Union forts, arsenals, customs houses and ships. It was done under President Buchanan, who did not order Fort Pickens turned over to Florida.
Now we move on to the Lincoln administration:
April 8: "Federal troops onboard the US revenue cutter Harriot Lane land to bolster the garrison of Fort Pickens, Florida.
April 10: "The steamer Baltic departs New York in a second attempt to relieve the garrison at Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, with naval agent Gustavus V. Fox onboard. En route, it is joined by the USS Pawnee off Hampton Roads, Virginia.
April 12: Southern General Beauregard's representatives "demand a precise time for the evacuation of that post. Major Robert Anderson, acknowledging the inevitable, declares noontime on April 15, provided he does not receive additional supplies or instructions from the government. Anderson then is informed summarily that the confederates will commence bombarding within one hour. The Civil War, a monumental struggle in military history and a defining moment for the United States, is about to unfold..."
April 12: "The USS Pawnee, the revenue cutter Harriet Lane, and the steamship Baltic commanded by Bustavus V. Fox, arrive in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, with supplies for Fort Sumter. Having appeared too late to reinforce the garrison they remain helpless spectators as the fort is bombarded.
April 12: "The naval squadron consisting of USS Sabine, Brooklyn, St. Louis, and Wynandeotte begins to land reinforcements at Fort Pickens, Florida."
According to Wikipedia five more ships accompanied the three listed here: Powhatan, Pocahontas and three tug boats. That makes eight, but there were also four more ships sent at the same time to reinforce Fort Pickens: Sabine, Brooklyn, St. Louis and Wynandotte.
Point is: where President Buchanan in January sent one ship, Star of the West to reinforce Fort Sumter, President Lincoln in April sent at least 12 ships, all told, to reinforce both Forts Sumter and Pickens.
The Fort Pickens operation was successful, resulting in no battles or casualties, and securing the fort for Union forces throughout the war.
The Fort Sumter operation resulted in Southern bombardment, destruction and surrender of Fort Sumter, and launched the Civil War.
I am of the Non-Sequitur school of thought which says, first: that the Constitution does not mention secession because it did not in any way contemplate it. Second: that a reasonable requirement for secession would be that it is approved by the same majorities in Congress who approved the states' admission to the Union.
So unilateral and unapproved secessions of 1860-61 were therefore, by definition, rebellion, insurrection and "domestic violence," all of which the Constitution provides for the Federal Government to defeat militarily.
But the best arguments against secession are the ones Lincoln himself used in his First Inagural Address:
"I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
"Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
"Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, was "to form a more perfect Union." But if [the] destruction of the Union, by one, or by a part only, of the States, be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
"It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, -- that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
"I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality, shall be so great and so universal, as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable with all, that I deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices."
I've spoken nothing but the truth (as best I know it), but you sound like a pretty serious nut-case to me. You may need therapy. The doctor is in. ;-)
Your argument that neither Lincoln nor Northerners in general were paragons of modern racial correctness is absolutely true, but irrelevant. The issue in 1860 was not whether blacks should attend integrated schools, or even whether blacks should be freed from slavery in the South.
The issues in 1860 concerned whether slavery should be EXTENDED to non-slave territories and ENFORCED against fugitive slaves in the NORTH. These are the issues which caused the South to secede. Lincoln's racial opinions had nothing to do with it.
And the Civil War was fought by the North, first and foremost to preserve the Union, only secondarily to abolish slavery.
So all your arguments on this subject are nonsensical. What exactly is your problem?
Then you don't understand the US Constitution, do you? Read it again. It authorizes the Federal Government to defeat militarily rebellion, insurrection and "domestic violence." And that's what happened between 1861 & 1865.
I've said before, half my family is Southern, a few even as radical as you. I love them all, and sincerely hope that, come the next election, every single one of them gets off their dead *sses and goes to vote for more conservative candidates.
Then we won't need to hear any jabbering nonsense about "states rights to secede."
Another insane argument. What exactly is your personal problem?
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
From the Supreme Court Center:
"Congress’ power to suspend was assumed in early commentary and stated in dictum by the Court.
"President Lincoln suspended the privilege on his own motion in the early Civil War period, but this met with such opposition that he sought and received congressional authorization.
"Three other suspensions were subsequently ordered on the basis of more or less express authorizations from Congress."
You have obviously not followed these posts, have you? The US Constitution clearly authorizes the Federal Government to defeat "invasion," "insurrection," "rebellion," and "domestic violence." So, can you read that one your own, or do you need me to point it all out for you?
There was no Federal use of military force against the South's illegal seizures of dozens and dozens of Federal forts, arsenals, customs houses, ships and even the US Marine Hospital in New Orleans. But these all constituted acts of rebellion and insurrection nonetheless.
But the South's firing on Federal Forces at Fort Sumter was a different matter. It was as serious, unequivocal act of war which could only be responded to in kind.
These are not difficult facts to understand, for anyone not determined to ignore them.
Let's take your points one at a time. "Invasion" might be descriptive of Union forces attempting to maintain garrisons within States which were no longer part of the Union - but certainly not of States attempting to expel those foreign garrisons. "Rebellion" was mentioned only with regard to the writ (prior to the 14th Amendment), and so was irrelevant with regard to the use of federal military force against the seceded States. With regard to "insurrection," William Rawle observed:
"...congress is empowered to provide for 'calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions,' but in respect to the two last mentioned objects, it is not to be understood as an exclusive power. There cannot at least be any doubt, that on the first emergency, each state enjoys a similar power, of which no act of congress can deprive them. For the principle of the Constitution is not to deny to the states the right of self-protection in such cases, but to co-operate with the collective force of the Union in aid of the state."
- William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America [second edition], 1829
The invasion of a seceded State by "the collective force of the Union," in an effort to remove the State government, and disperse or destroy the State militia, hardly constitutes federal action "in aid of the state." Lest there be any doubt in that regard (or with regard to "domestic violence"), Mr. Rawle further observed:
...[the United States are] expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, "to repress domestic violence." If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.
"Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the, express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States.
"The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.
"...The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics."
Mr. Rawle, by the way, was most assuredly familiar with the constitutional concepts of "insurrection," "rebellion," and "domestic violence." As one source notes:
"RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP, the oldest law practice in the United States, was founded by William Rawle in Philadelphia in 1783... [Rawle] accepted President Washington’s request to become the first U.S. Attorney for the District of Pennsylvania. As U.S. Attorney, Rawle was instrumental in suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania and prosecuting the leaders of the insurrection. In 1792, Washington offered Rawle the position of federal judge for the new Pennsylvania district. When Rawle declined that post, Washington offered the position of U.S. Attorney General, which Rawle also declined..."
- Rawle & Henderson (website: http://www.rawle.com/About_History.asp)
And (for those of you fixated on the issue of slavery) the law firm founded by Mr. Rawle further notes that he was "president of the local anti-slavery society."
;>)
But these all constituted acts of rebellion and insurrection nonetheless.
That was "obviously" not how the terms "rebellion and insurrection" were understood by legal scholars in the early 1800s.
But the South's firing on Federal Forces at Fort Sumter was a different matter. It was as serious, unequivocal act of war which could only be responded to in kind.
As Mr. Rawle noted in 1829, "the states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union." The State of South Carolina having formally withdrawn, the federal forces had no right to remain. Their continued presence (and the attempt to resupply them) was an "unequivocal act of war which could only be responded to in kind."
"These are not difficult facts to understand, for anyone not determined to ignore them..."
;>)
I fully expect to meet you one day in the Democratic Socialist Re-education Camp #7. Maybe then, together as inmates, we will have time to discuss what could have happened differently back in the day if only a few states had seceded while we wait in line for a cup of fish eye soup in the pouring rain.....
I agree, it is radical to try and liberate one from under the Federal Boot. It doesn't happen without breaking a few eggs.
Thank you for raising questions about Fort Pickens. In putting together my response I've learned some things about how both Lincoln and Buchanan operated.
Buchanan didn't learn anything from his Star of the West failure. A couple of weeks later and perhaps smarting from criticism of how he handled the Star of the West crisis, he secretly sent a warship, the Brooklyn, to reinforce Fort Pickens with arms, ammunition, artillery, supplies, and troops. The Floridians found out the Brooklyn was coming and what its objective was, and they were consequently preparing an assault on the fort. Buchanan was about to blunder into war. Again.
Into this impending confrontation stepped former Florida senator Stephen R. Mallory, who offered a peaceful way to delay or avoid bloodshed. Mallory started the ball rolling by sending a proposal to friends in Washington who took it to Buchanan. The Floridians would agree to not assault the fort if the federals would not reinforce Fort Pickens. Buchanan had intended the Brooklyn’s mission to be a secret, but the cat was out of the bag. Once he got Mallory's proposal, Buchanan quickly countermanded the Brooklyn’s orders which had been issued by Winfield Scott on January 21.
Issac Toucey, the US Secretary of the Navy, then immediately sent a Captain Barron to Pensacola to stop the Brooklyn when it came in sight at Pensacola. Captain Barron took with him the following document [Official Records, Series 1, Volume 1, pages 355-356; my bold]:
Washington, January 29, 1861
To James Glynn, commanding the Macedonian; Captain W. S. Walker, commanding the Brooklyn, and other naval officers in command, and Lieutenant Adam J. Slemmer, First Regiment Artillery, U. S. Army, commanding Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Fla.
In consequence of the assurances received from Mr. Mallory in a telegram yesterday to Messrs. Slidell, Hunter, and Bigler [rb: two senators and a governor], with a request that it should be laid before the President, that Fort Pickens would not be assaulted, and an offer of such an assurance to the same effect from Colonel Chase, for the purpose of avoiding a hostile collision, upon receiving satisfactory assurances from Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase that Fort Pickens will not be attacked, you are instructed not to land the company on board the Brooklyn unless said fort shall be attacked or preparations shall be made for its attack. The provisions necessary for the supply of the fort you will land. The Brooklyn and other vessels of war on the station will remain, and you will exercise the utmost vigilance and be prepared at a moment's warning to land the company at Fort Pickens, and you and they will instantly repel an attack on the fort.
The President yesterday sent a special message to Congress commending the Virginia resolutions of compromise. The commissioners of different States are to meet here on Monday, the 4th February, and it is important that during their session a collision of arms should be avoided, unless an attack should be made or there should be preparation for such an attack. In either event the Brooklyn and the other vessels will act promptly.
Your right, and that of the other officers in command at Pensacola, freely to communicate with the Government by special messenger, and its right in the same manner to communicate with yourself and them, will remain intact as the basis on which the present instruction is given.
J. HOLT,
Secretary of War.
ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
The truce agreement, often called the Armistice, was kept by both sides even to the end of March, and the peace was maintained.
Why would Mallory have sought a peaceful way out of this situation if what you said was right, that the Southerners wanted war? There were something like 1,500 Southern troops around Pensacola waiting to storm the fort that had only Slemmer and his roughly 50 soldiers and 30 sailors inside. Later Union reviews of the defensibility of the fort done while this was going on found many weaknesses in the defense.
A more detailed description of the above information can be found in the book, Lincoln Takes Command by John Shipley Tilley.
Now into this volatile mix came Lincoln. On March 12, 1861, eight days after his inaugural speech that was correctly perceived to mean war, he ordered that the troops on the Brooklyn be offloaded into Fort Pickens. The order was sent by E. D. Townsend by the command of Winfield Scott. Reinforcing the fort, of course, would be in violation of the armistice and trigger an assault by the troops surrounding the fort, then maybe 5,000 in number. It would mean war. Lincoln’s Navy Secretary Gideon Wells knew of the armistice, certainly by communications from Pensacola dated March 18 that referred to the agreement made between Mallory and the US government and perhaps earlier from his predecessor when he took office.
Fortunately, however, the March 12 order didn't reach the Brooklyn until March 31. The Navy commander of the vessels at Pensacola realized Scott’s orders were in direct violation of his orders from the Navy Department (which were to obey the armistice), and he declined to offload the troops.
At this point Lincoln through Welles reaffirmed the order to reinforce Pickens and orders more troops to be sent for that purpose. Like Anderson’s realization that Lincoln’s expedition to Sumter meant war, which I posted above, Montgomery Meigs, who headed the April effort to reinforce Fort Pickens, realized that Lincoln’s action at Pickens meant war. Meigs put it this way: "This is the beginning of the war which every statesman and soldier has foreseen since the passage of the South Carolina ordinance of secession." [Official Records, Series 1, Volume 1, page 368]
Nice peaceful guy, that Lincoln. IMO, he wanted war, not peace, and, in particular, took actions that would result in the South shooting first. He did not seem to have any qualms about unilaterally violating agreements the US Government had made that had prevented bloodshed. In the case of Fort Pickens, he didn't tell the other side he was terminating the agreement the government had made. He just pulled a sneak action.
Is the "Harriot Lane" different from the "Harriet Lane?" If so, it might explain the supposed landing of troops from the "Harriot Lane" at Fort Pickens on April 8, of which I have no knowledge, and the departure of the "Harriet Lane" from New York Harbor on April 8 bound for Charleston. She carried no troops to offload, just her crew.
She later supposedly fired the first naval shot of the war to stop a commercial steamer, the Nashville trying to enter Charleston Harbor. Some say the shot occurred on the night of April 11, and others say the morning of April 12. If the Lane fired after firing on Fort Sumter began, then the honor of the first naval shot might belong to the Confederate floating battery that was firing at Sumter during the bombardment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.