My source for most of this data is Fredriksen's Civil War Almanac.
One entry for March 3, 1861 says:
"President Jefferson Davis appoints General Pierre G.T. Beauregard commander of Confederate forces in the vicinity of Charleston, South Carolina. He is instructed to prepare for military action against the Federal garrison sequestered inside Fort Sumter in the harbor."
rustbucket quoting Louisiana Gazette & Sentinal:
"Montgomery, March 5th -- Since the receipt of the Inaugural address of Mr. Lincoln, it is universally conceded here that war between the Confederate States and the United States is inevitable. Mr. Benjamin said last night, that in his opinion, there would be a clash of arms within thirty days."
Presumably, "Mr. Benjamin" was Judah P. Benjamin of Louisiana, formerly a US Senator, then the Confederacy's Attorney General, later in 1861 Secretary of War, and in 1862 Secretary of State. He was a man much respected by President Davis and others for his good judgment. After the war made a harrowing escape to England, died in France in 1884.
Now just think about what this article says. No major shots have yet been fired, no battles fought, no one yet, so far as we know, has been killed. And yet the Confederate Attorney General, one of Davis' most trusted men, announces publicly that "war is inevitable," and within 30 days. He was only off by a few days.
And why was war "inevitable"? Because the Union invaded the South? No. Because the Union had fought back against Southern seizures of Federal forts? No. Because there had been a battle of military forces? No. Because Union and Southern forces were already killing each other? No. Because the Union was already collecting taxes on Southern trade? No.
The alleged reason war seemed "inevitable" within a month on March 5, 1861, was because of the tone of Lincoln's March 4 Inaugural speech. The South didn't like it. But Davis had already ordered, on March 3, for preparations to force surrender of Fort Sumter -- force which Davis knew full well was war.
Why did Davis order preparations for war against Fort Sumter on March 3? Well, I have a theory -- or rather, a matter of opinion, a best guess, if you will. Possibly the occasion will arise to explain it...
rustbucket: "The South correctly believed that they could legally secede from the Union.
I will certainly grant you this much: many in the South incorrectly believed they could legally and peacefully secede. A study of history and of the Constitution itself would have shown them their errors.
"They were simply exercising the understandings of the NY, VA, and RI ratifiers of the Constitution that their states/people could reassume their governance if it comported to their happiness.
Especially, they would have learned that those "signing statements" by NY, VA and RI which did not make it into the Bill of Rights were REJECTED by our Founders.
"Did you ever find statements from other states at the time of ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that said the NY, VA, and RI ratifiers were wrong?"
Yes, the Bill of Rights itself -- it includes many of those "signing statement" conditions, but NOTHING refering to "powers of government may be reassumed by the people." Point is this: our Founders carefully reviewed and accepted many of the modifications to the Constitution proposed by some states. But NOT any language that could be read as suggesting a "right of secession."
rustbucket: "Governor Pickens had told Lincoln's messenger Lamon in March that no warship would be allowed in the harbor for any purpose. Yet Lincoln sent them."
And not the first warning, by far:
Jan 14, 1861: "The South Carolina legislature summarily declares that any Union attempt to reinforce Fort Sumter is tantamount to war."
But President Buchanan had already told SC envoys on January 13, and again on February 5 that Fort Sumter would not be surrendered.
Obviously, since it could not be surrendered, it had to be resupplied, and both sides knew it.
And just suppose, for sake of argument, that someday I were to tell you that you must not set foot outside your own house, for any purpose. And just suppose you ignore my warning, and walk around outside your house, which I declare to be an "act of war," and open fire on you.
Which of us, under those circumstances would be responsible for the resulting conflagration? C'mon, tell the truth. ;-)
BJ: I will certainly grant you this much: many in the South incorrectly believed they could legally and peacefully secede. A study of history and of the Constitution itself would have shown them their errors.
"Errors?" That's historical revisionist bullsh!t. In reality, a "study of history and of the Constitution itself" provides no evidence of any explicit prohibition of the right of State secession. Quite the opposite, in fact (if you take the time to read the records of the debates in the federal convention, The Federalist Papers, the ratification documents of the several States, Amendment X, the public writings of Jefferson & Madison, Tucker's Blackstone's, etc., etc., etc.).
You're a bullsh!t artist, plain & simple...
My source for most of this data is Fredriksen's Civil War Almanac.
One entry for March 3, 1861 says:
"President Jefferson Davis appoints General Pierre G.T. Beauregard commander of Confederate forces in the vicinity of Charleston, South Carolina. He is instructed to prepare for military action against the Federal garrison sequestered inside Fort Sumter in the harbor."
Here are Beauregard's orders dated March 1, 1861. He arrived in Charleston on March 3. Davis must have had a large megaphone to reach him on the 3rd..
WAR DEPARTMENT,
Montgomery, March 1, 1861.
Brigadier General P. G. T. BEAUREGARD:
SIR: You will proceed without delay to Charleston and report to Governor Pickens for military duty in that State.
You are authorized by your appointment as brigadier-general, under the provisions of the third section of an act of the Congress to raise Provisional Forces for the Confederate States, to receive into the service of this Government such forces as may be tendered or may volunteer, not to exceed five thousand men, as you may require, or for whom you can make suitable provision. A copy of the act referred to has been this day transmitted to Governor Pickens.
You will report to this Department your arrival at Charleston, and give such information with respect to the defenses of that harbor as you may consider important. You will also secure, if possible, the services of a competent adjutant, and report your action in that behalf to this Department.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
L. P. WALKER,
Secretary of War
Defense of the harbor would have certainly involved defending against bombardment from Fort Sumter.
I will certainly grant you this much: many in the South incorrectly believed they could legally and peacefully secede. A study of history and of the Constitution itself would have shown them their errors.
I suggest you read Albert Taylor Bledsoe's 1866 book, "Is Davis a Traitor? Or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to the War of 1861". Here's a Link. Bledsoe knew Lincoln in Springfield and bested him in court more than Lincoln bested Bledsoe.
Some have argued Bledsoe's book helped the Supreme Court realize that they couldn't prove that Davis was a traitor. Whether that is true or not, I don't know. Chief Justice Chase was supposedly on record saying in 1865 that by the Constitution secession was not rebellion [from Shelby Foote, I think]. There were treason trials in Tennessee after the war. From the Richmond Daily Dispatch on December 18, 1865:
Trial for treason.
--The first treason case consequent upon the late rebellion is now being tried in the United States District Court of Tennessee before Judge Trigg. The case is the United States vs. John S. Gamble, who was an enrolling officer under the Confederate Government in Blount county, East Tennessee. This is the first treason trial since the memorable Aaron Burr case.
Gamble was acquitted.
Especially, they would have learned that those "signing statements" by NY, VA and RI which did not make it into the Bill of Rights were REJECTED by our Founders.
They were basically covered by the 10th Amendment. As Thomas Jefferson said:
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.
The 10th Amendment was originally the 12th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Now back to estate work.