You mean, the way Lincoln chose.
****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Only Congress can dispose of Federal property - Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. Lincoln didn't have the authority."
Foreign nations are not subject to the laws of Congress; but the President and the Congress are subject to the Constitution, and their refusal to allow the states to exercise their retained power of secession constitutes tyranny.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "In fact, the move from the Custom House to a fort had been recommended by one of Buchanan's cabinent members -- his Secretary of State"
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "And when exactly was that done? I don't know of any historians who say the move actually took place. Maybe that's why you can find no record of it?"
I have read it many times in the past, but I cannot find the source.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "The party was established on a principle of corporate welfare, and protective tariffs was the chief source of income."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Upwards on 95% of all tariff income was collected in Northern ports. Losing far less than 10% would hardly have cause crony capitalism to crash and burn, assuming it existed as you describe to begin with."
Lincoln believed it was a big deal. He threatened war over the collection of tariffs. Northern newspapers also believed it to be a big deal. For example:
"Should the South succeed in carrying out her designs, she will immediately form commercial alliances with European countries who will readily acquiesce in any arrangement which will help English manufacturing at the expense of New England. The first move the South would make would be to impose a heavy tax upon the manufactures of the North, and an export tax upon the cotton used by Northern manufacturers. In this way she would seek to cripple the North. The carrying trade, which is now done by American vessels, would be transferred to British ships, which would be a heavy blow aimed at our commerce. It will also seriously affect our shoe trade and the manufacture of ready-made clothing, while it would derange the monetary affairs of the country."
[The Boston Herald, November 12, 1860, in Kenneth M. Stampp, "The Causes of the Civil War." 1986, p.68]
This one wrote of the necessity of a blockade:
"One of the most important benefits which the Federal Government has conferred upon the nation is unrestricted trade between many prosperous States with divers productions and industrial pursuits. But now, since the Montgomery [Confederate] Congress has passed a new tariff, and duties are exacted upon Northern goods sent to ports in the Cotton States, the traffic between the two sections will be materially decreased.... Another, and a more serious difficulty arises out of our foreign commerce, and the different rates of duty established by the two tariffs which will soon be in force..."
"The General Government,... to prevent the serious diminution of its revenues, will be compelled to blockade the Southern ports... and prevent the importation of foreign goods into them, or to put another expensive guard upon the frontiers to prevent smuggling into the Union States. Even if the independence of the seceding Commonwealths should be recognized, and two distinct nations thus established, we should still experience all the vexations, and be subjected to all the expenses and annoyances which the people of Europe have long suffered, on account of their numerous Governments, and many inland lines of custom-houses. Thus, trade of all kinds, which has already been seriously crippled would be permanently embarrassed..."
"It is easy for men to deride and underestimate the value of the Union, but its destruction would speedily be followed by fearful proofs of its importance to the whole American people."
[Philadelphia Press, March 18, 1861, in Stampp, Kenneth M., "The Causes of the Civil War." 1986, p.69]
When Lincoln actually ordered the blockade, he claimed his purpose was the collection of revenue:
****************"Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States:
"And whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection, have threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas, and in waters of the United States: And whereas an Executive Proclamation has been already issued, requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, and convening Congress in extraordinary session, to deliberate and determine thereon: Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, with a view to the same purposes before mentioned, and to the protection of the public peace, and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have assembled and deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings, or until the same shall have ceased, have further deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and of the law of Nations, in such case provided. For this purpose a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach, or shall attempt to leave either of the said ports, she will be duly warned by the Commander of one of the blockading vessels, who will endorse on her register the fact and date of such warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port, she will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port, for such proceedings against her and her cargo as prize, as may be deemed advisable.
[Roy P. Basler, "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 4." Rutgers University Press, 1953, pp.338-339]
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Davis did commit treason against the U.S. and he trashed his own constitution. Lincoln did neither."
Practically everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional, and he committed treason against at least some of the remaining states by making war against them.
Davis relied on the Congress for authorization to suspend habeas corpus.
Where are your sources for your claims against Davis?
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "The U.S. didn't import cotton during that time, that I am aware of. Are you referring to finished cotton goods; and, if so, for what purpose?"
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "No, I am referring to your claim that high U.S. tariffs caused foreign countries to apply their own tariffs in retaliation and that cost Southern exporters money. Since most U.S. cotton exports went to the UK then my question is what was their tariff on U.S. cotton imports that cost Southern exporters so much money?
I don't recall saying there were reciprocal tariffs on cotton, itself; only by their trading partners. I would assume British tariffs on raw cotton imports would be rare, if they occurred at all. However, these historians indicated the threat existed:
"As explained by his colleague, Nathan Appleton, the minimum was designed to protect the fledgling industry in New England without antagonizing Southern cotton exporters to England. Cotton growers in the South exported raw cotton to Britain, and they were opposed to any tariff that would restrict the sales of their British customers to the United States. They worried about both loss of sales and further losses due to possible British retaliation. Lowell's tariff design shows that the sectional conflict over the tariff that would loom large at midcentury was already present at the start of New England industrialization, although in 1816 he had navigated the political shoals and crafted a tariff that did not founder on the rocks of sectionalism."
[Irwin & Temin, "The Antebellum Tariff on Cotton Textiles Revisited." Journal of Economic History, Vol.61, No.3; September, 2001, p.779]
Mr. Kalamata
No, that's what Davis chose. In the end was it worth it?
Foreign nations are not subject to the laws of Congress; but the President and the Congress are subject to the Constitution, and their refusal to allow the states to exercise their retained power of secession constitutes tyranny.
We're talking about transferring ownership of Sumter from the U.S. to the Confederacy. Your comment is irrelevant to that.
Even had the Confederacy sent a delegation to negotiate rather than one to deliver an ultimatum, it would still have required Congressional approval to transfer ownership of Sumter to the Davis regime. But the South was not interested in a peaceful settlement.
I have read it many times in the past, but I cannot find the source.
Of course not.
Lincoln believed it was a big deal. He threatened war over the collection of tariffs.
Or over the delivery of the mail, if you're going to take parts of the First Inaugural out of context.
But again you offer nothing but editorials and cherry-picked quotes instead of hard facts. Why would the loss of approximately 5% of tariff revenue cause the war? Especially since three years later tariff revenue was well over twice what it had been in 1860? Loss of revenue from Southern imports just were not that great of a blow economically.
Practically everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional, and he committed treason against at least some of the remaining states by making war against them.
Absolute nonsense. Unlike Davis, everything Lincoln did was subject to judicial review. And suppressing rebellion is allowed; Article I, Section 8.
Davis relied on the Congress for authorization to suspend habeas corpus.
Where are your sources for your claims against Davis?
His own actions and that of his government. No Supreme Court. Offering to end slavery in exchange for foreign recognition when he had no power to do so. Policies he enacted which were found unconstitutional in the U.S. - income tax, declaring martial law in areas nowhere near the war. Policies like nationalizing industries that would have been found unconstitutional had Lincoln tried them.
Cotton growers in the South exported raw cotton to Britain, and they were opposed to any tariff that would restrict the sales of their British customers to the United States. They worried about both loss of sales and further losses due to possible British retaliation.
Fair enough. Was any retaliation ever enacted in form of tariffs on goods imported from the southern states? If you stop and think about it, doing so would have made no sense. Taxing an import that your own domestic industries needed for their product and which was not easily replaced?
Can you show any quotes or writings by the founding fathers during the time of the creation and adoption of the constitution talking about this supposed “retained power of secession”? From the federalist papers, letters to each other, etc. I mean this seems like a pretty important right, you can just leave the Union whenever you want. Seems the founders would have discussed it.
I mean the quotes I’ve posted from the founders explicitly say the opposite.
“The constitution must be adopted in toto and forever.” - James Madison
I mean forever means, well, forever. You can’t at a future date say I’m out of the constitution now because you’ve adopted it forever. Maybe forever meant something else back then?
Or how about this one from the federalist papers.
“Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system” Alexander Hamilton
That’s pretty clear to me. Indissoluble means unable to be destroyed, lasting. You can’t have something indestructible when a state can just up and leave for any reason.
Or how about good old Charles Cotesworth Pickney who stared at South Carolina’s constitutional ratification convention-
“Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses.”
He clearly says that the states are NOT separately and individually independent. Actually calls it a form of political heresy. If a state is not independent how can it then claim to be independent?