In his July 4, 1861, “Message to Congress,” President Lincoln said "no choice was left but to call out the war power of the Government; and so to resist force employed for its destruction by force for its preservation." Lincoln claimed "nothing was done beyond the constitutional competency of Congress." And decisions were made, Lincoln said, "trusting that Congress would readily ratify them."
If the south had considered to take the matter to the courts (which requires presenting evidence) rather than open insurrection, that weak argument could stand.
"Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which says: "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."
So in fact, you're both mistaken on that point. South Carolina had already committed acts against the Constitution and he was defending the union against open insurrection that Buchannon ignored.
http://www.civiced.org/index.php?page=multimedia_lincoln_john_patrick_transcript
Insurrection would be within a state (I'm givin' ya a hint here). Not a single one of the Southern governors declared an insurrection in their state. Lincoln even tried his best to get Sam Houston of Texas to do so; offered ol' Sam some federal troops if he'd just declare a state of insurrection in Texas. Well, ol' Sam was a Union man, but he was an honorable man and told Lincoln to pound sand. Ol' Sam told Lincoln that secession was a matter for Texans to decide (9th Amendment) and when the Texans voted to secede they spoke through their voice, The State of Texas (10th Amendment), and She seceded.
You still haven't answered my question about the Northern slavocracy. Do you deny the individual fortunes Norhterner bankers, merchants, industrialists, shippers, etc., were amassing from cotton (slave) profits?
Before Congress adjourned, Lincoln was asked if he had anything they needed to be made aware of and he responded in the negative. At the same time, Lincoln was preparing for war. If you are under the impression that Ft. Sumter was the start of the war, you are mistaken. Not only did Lincoln's secretary, in writing, call it Lincoln's war, the USSC has affixed the beginning of the war on Lincoln:
The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates
Retroactive approval by Congress does not a constitutional act by the Executive make. The Constitution is very clear on where the responsibility for declaring war rests - with Congress, not the Executive.
Madison and Hamilton make clear the utter Unconstitutionality of invading any State.
Again, either way, Lincoln's acts were Unconstitutional.
And you say I'm the one grasping at straws in the dark? LOL!
If the south had considered to take the matter to the courts (which requires presenting evidence) rather than open insurrection, that weak argument could stand.
Where are the court cases filed by Lincoln or any of the Northern states? There aren't any. Open insurrection did not exist within (another hint) any of the states. Again, insurrection was not declared by a single governor.
So in fact, you're both mistaken on that point. South Carolina had already committed acts against the Constitution and he was defending the union against open insurrection that Buchannon ignored.
Rebellion and secession are two different things. I believe DVSST provided you with definitions earlier in the thread. And again, The war didn't begin with S.C. It was, according to Lincoln's secretary, in writing, Lincoln's war and USSC affixed the beginning of the war to Lincoln:
The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates