This does still not change the fact of why south carolina seceded and why President Lincoln called up troops. It seems curious to me that the arkansas convention seemed to have no problem with south carolina firing on a federal fort but were willing to secede because they had been asked to provide troops to quell the insurrection.
I would also be interested in seeing the notes on the convention since the ordinance of secession alludes to additional well-founded causes of complaint that was set forth during the convention.
No sweat, nothing we aren't all guilty of at one time or another.
This does still not change the fact of why south carolina seceded and why President Lincoln called up troops.
You're right, it doesn't change the facts, but Lincoln was acting in conflict with the Constitution in calling for troops.
Here is Madison on use of force against a soveriegn state:
“Mr. MADISON, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force [by the federal govt against the States], the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. — A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con.”
Alexander Hamilton (an arch-federalist) on coercion and the use of force against a sovereign state:
"It has been observed, to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single state. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war?"
"Suppose Massachusetts, or any large state, should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those states which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying state at war with a non-complying state; Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another; this state collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against the federal head."
"Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government. But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible."