Question for you. What do you believe President Buchanan’s response (constitutionally) should have been to South Carolina’s declaration of secession?
I am from Pennsylvania, and I understand that Buchanan's hand was in the pockets of the steel industry protectionists (aka, the crony capitalists.) But if Buchanan HAD been a patriot, he would have said something like this:
"The powers of secession and nullification were retained by the states in the constitutional and ratificational conventions to constrain the overreaching lust for power by those who seek to divide us and rule over us, rather than represent us."
We were warned early on about those seeking to usurp power by dividing us.
"'Divide and govern' is a maxim consecrated by the experience of ages, and should be familiar in its use to every politician as the knife he carries in his pocket." [Philiip Freneau, "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One." National Gazette, 1792]
BTW, I read that statement by Freneau on Free Republic many, many years ago. At the time, I never dreamed I would one day be saying this: Lincoln was 'The Great Divider!'
Mr. Kalamata
Allow me to offer a few (hopefully brief ;>) observations.
First, another question: what options actually exist for a chief executive, if/when faced with State secession (or some other perceived violation of the law)?
We can look to fairly recent history, for a few analogous examples. We probably all recognize the names “Ruby Ridge” and “Waco”. In both cases, the federal government chose to exert lawful authority by means of force. (Obviously, whether the force was actually applied in a lawful or even sensible manner is open to discussion). We quite likely remember both of the above names, because there were body bags involved, and because (as noted above) reasonable questions were subsequently raised regarding the actual application of force.
But how many of us still remember the “Montana Freemen”? The government, without surrendering any authority, elected to negotiate. Many do not even remember the Montana ‘standoff’, because no one died, and essentially no issues were raised regarding the exercise of federal authority.
So, possible options available to a chief executive quite probably include the application of armed force, and negotiation (others may suggest additional options). Which option might Mr. Buchanan have chosen (your original question)? And which did Mr. Lincoln actually choose?
Perhaps more to the point, WHY did Mr. Lincoln make the decisions that he did? An interesting viewpoint is offered by Gabor S. Boritt, in his 1996 ”And the War Came”? Abraham Lincoln and the Question of Individual Responsibility. I won’t quote long sections of text (because many won’t read such posts – please feel free to skip the quotes below), but the author notes:
“…Republicans dismissed threats of secession and Civil War, as a political ploy to extort concessions from the North.”
“…like others, [Mr. Lincoln] spoke with contempt about Southern threats of violence.”
“From contempt Lincoln could move on to ridicule. Even in 1860 secession threats reminded him of the joke about [the skinny old, next-to-dead horse]…and the crowd rewarded Lincoln with roars of laughter.”
“In 1855 Joshua Speed of Kentucky [once his best friend]… wrote in private of his preference for disunion. Lincoln did not take his friend seriously. In 1856 Lincoln announced that “All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug…”
“Lincoln disliked violence and war in a way that went well beyond the common… With his Kentucky origins… at times he may have thought of himself as a Southerner and, in any case, thought he understood Southerners. He wasn’t and he didn’t… Lincoln overestimated Southern unionism to the end of his life. He misread the people below the Mason-Dixon line in part because his own devotion to the Union was so deep”
“…[I]n the words of Robert Bruce, ‘those who denied the possibility of war invited it.’ By 1860 Lincoln was chief among them.”
We all recognize that, in 1861, Mr. Lincoln was a new president, facing difficulties that no president would desire. While attempting to deal with the situation in South Carolina, he sought advice from his cabinet. IIRC, all but one or two advised that he not attempt to resupply Fort Sumter. Apparently, he made his decision (as one might expect any president reaching a decision) based on his own understanding of the facts. What part, if any, did his unrealistic, preconceived ideas play in that decision, and subsequent events?
Why is this relevant? Where options exist, choices must be made – and heaven help the commander, who makes life-and-death decisions based on an inadequate or inaccurate understanding of the situation.
Say you’re on your way to Baghdad, and you encounter a roadblock. What are you facing? A couple dozen ‘fedayeen’ militiamen, or a Republican Guard battalion? (Maybe both, with the militiamen highly visible, right up front, trying to suck you in?) If your commanding officer doesn’t know, but is personally convinced that all Iraqis are [fill in the blank], does it make a difference?
Probably so - if you’re dealing with Americans in body bags the day after…