POLITICAL: Another Disunion Blast; Editorial: More Disunion Nonsense; Cruelty on Board American Ships; A Short Speech by Mr. Lincoln (8/11/1860)

New York Times - Times Machine ^ | 8/11/1860

[Homer_J_Simpson]

SABINE FARM, Friday, Aug. 3,1860. GENTLEMEN: My high respect for you induces me to hasten to reply to your note. If LINCOLN be elected, I think the Southern States should withdraw from the Union; all, if not all, then as many as will, and if no other, South Carolina alone, in the promptest manner' and by the most direct means. To comprehend the full significance of LINCOLN's election, we must remember the principles, the character and the sentiment of the Republican Party. The vital principle of this party is negro equality, the only logical finale of which is emancipation. To see this, it is only necessary to look at their platform, which, though intended for obvious reasons of policy to appear conservative, yet raises the veil in part. This platform says, "We hold that all men are created equal -- that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights -- that among these are life, liberty," &c.; and this on the motion of Mr. GIDDINGS. This is intended to include negroes. It follows, therefore, according to Republican faith, that no one can be rightfully held in Slavery.

[rustbucket]

Thanks. I forgot to include the information of where those documents can be found in the Official Records other than that they were in Confederate Correspondence. I used to use either the Cornell online version or the Ohio State online version, but for some time now I have had my own copy of the Official Records on a purchased DVD, which I can use offline. My DVD has all of the maps, charts, text, pages, etc., as they appear in the original books.

[woodpusher]

I have a DVD set as well, Army and Navy. It is useful for searching. Some time ago, Cornell MOA migrated to Hathitrust so all the very old links are dead.

[rustbucket]

That is what I have as well. It has been a while since I used the Cornell site.

[woodpusher]

My bad. I saw the document at your link. I was recalling a source from over twenty years ago, and have rediscovered that source.

Frank van der Linden, Lincoln, The Road to War, Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, Colorado, 1998, pg. 279-280:

On Sunday, April 14, Lincoln met with his cabinet and drafted a proclamation, to be telegrahed to the nation the next day. He could not declare war—under the Constitution, only the Congress could do that—but, in effect, he announced that a war was going on because the federal laws were being obstructed in the seven seceded states by “combinations too powerful to be suppressed” by the courts and the marshals. Therefore, he called for the governors to provide seventy-five thousand militia “to suppress said combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed.”

As the slim legal basis for his policy, Lincoln relied upon a 1795 law he interpreted as giving him this authority, which amounted to summoning a “posse comitatus” of record size—seventy-five thousand men—to enforce the federal laws. He also called upon “the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse and retire “drawn peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days.” He pledged that “the utmost care will be observed ... to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens of any part of the country. ” Those assurances were to prove grimly ironic as the ensuing civil war brought ruin upon the South and the loss of its “peculiar” property, the slaves that had an estimated value of $4 billion, all reduced to zero.

Lincoln also called Congress into special session, but delayed the opening date until the Fourth of July. Why did he not summon the lawmakers to come at once and help him cope with the great crisis? Carl Schurz, the brilliant young German devoted to the Republican cause, provided the answer in a letter to Lincoln in early April: “Some time ago, you told me you did not want to call an extra session of Congress for fear of reopening the compromise agitation.” Schurz suggested that, after a show of force to defend the forts, Lincoln should call Congress back and then “the enthusiasm of the masses will be great and overwhelming,” and “Congress will be obliged to give you any legislation you may ask for.” On the other hand, Schurz darkly prophesied, if Lincoln seemed indecisive, “we shall be beaten in most of the Northern states in the fall elections and your administration will be at the mercy of Democratic demagogues.”

Endnoted to "'Some time ago': Carl Schurz to Lincoln, April 5, 1861, Lincoln Papers, LC."

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher quoting SCOTUS: "The President’s proclamation of April 19, 1861, declaring that he had deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, was a recognition of a war waged, and conclusive evidence that a state of war existed between the people inhabiting those States and the United States."

This seems to be the gist of the Lost Causer argument, but please notice that woodpusher has done us the courtesy of also quoting the words which preceded it:

"That the civil war had an existence commencing before that date must be accepted as an established fact.
This was fully determined in The Prize Cases, 2 Black, 635; and it is no longer open to denial."

Here SCOTUS simply acknowledges that a war's existence is independent of any particular declaration and in the case of the US Civil War, it began before Lincoln's April 19 blockade announcement.
Indeed, I ague that Confederates began waging war against the United States, in many cases, even before they formally declared their secessions!
South Carolinians, for example, within mere days of declaring secession began threatening Union officials, seizing Federal properties and demanding a US Army surrender.
Within weeks they had fired on a Union resupply ship and were preparing a military siege of Union Fort Sumter.
All those were Confederate acts of war which went unanswered by President Buchanan.

President Lincoln, like Buchanan before him, first responded to the Confederate war against the United States by sending a resupply mission to Fort Sumter.
When that failed, as had Buchanan's, Lincoln unlike Buchanan, responded by calling up state militias to retake seized Federal properties.
Similar missions in the past did not require specific Congressional approval -- consider for examples, the 1857 Mormon rebellion in Utah (Col. Albert Sydney Johnston commanding) and the Navy's 1858 mission to Paraguay (Commodore Shubrick commanding).

Point is, wars exist regardless of declarations, not all military actions require Congress's prior approvals, and there are never formal declarations of war in cases of rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence" and/or treason.

SCOTUS post-war musings on when, legalistically, civil war started are irrelevant to facts on the ground at the time, as indeed SCOTUS itself recognized:

"That the civil war had an existence commencing before that date must be accepted as an established fact. "

[woodpusher]

Here SCOTUS simply acknowledges that a war's existence is independent of any particular declaration and in the case of the US Civil War, it began before Lincoln's April 19 blockade announcement.

In McStea, Court found, "It is to be observed that the proclamation of April 15, 1861, was not a distinct recognition of an existing state of war."

Actually, the Court found that the President had the power to recognize the existence of war, but that he did not do so prior to his second proclamation, that of April 19, in which he announced the blockade. "Even then, the war was only inferentially recognized; and the measures proposed were avowed to be 'with a view to . . . the protection of the public peach and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have assembled.'"

And "The only interference with the business relations of citizens in all parts of the country, contemplated by the proclamation, seems to have been such as the blockade might cause. And that it was understood to be an assent by the Executive to continued business intercourse may be inferred from the subsequent action of the government (of which we may take judicial notice) in continuing the mail service in Louisiana and the other insurrectionary States long after the blockade was declared. If it was not such an assent or permission, it was well fitted to deceive the public."

And, "But in a civil more than in a foreign war, or a war declared, it is important that unequivocal notice should be given of the illegality of traffic or commercial intercourse; for, in a civil war, only the government can know when the insurrection has assumed the character of war."

And, "If, however, the proclamations, considered by themselves, leave it doubtful whether they were intended to be permissive of commercial intercourse with the inhabitants of the insurrectionary States, so far as such intercourse did not interfere with the blockade, the subsequent act of Congress passed on the thirteenth day of July, 1861, ought to put doubt at rest."

Of course, Matthews v. McStea 91 U.S. 7 (1875) was not the first Supreme Court pronouncement upon the start of the war. That occurred in The Protector 79 U.S. 700 (1871). In The Protector, the Court stated, "we find that the war began in Alabama on the 19th of April, 1861, and ended on the 2d April, 1866."

[woodpusher]

President Lincoln, like Buchanan before him, first responded to the Confederate war against the United States by sending a resupply mission to Fort Sumter.

This is unseemly nonsense.

Fort Sumter was being supplied by a local merchant, McSweeney under a contract pre-existing the troop movement to Fort Sumter. Buchanan and Lincoln set afoot a mission to reinforce Fort Sumter (and Fort Pickens), not to re

supply.

The Official Records clearly document this.

The below lie was transmitted to South Carolina Governor Pickens by Robert S. Chew of the State Department:

O.R. Series 1, Vol. 1, Part 1, page 291

APRIL 8, 1861.

"I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the fort."

The above was communicated to us on the evening of April 8 by Robert S. Chew, esq., of the State Department in Washington, and Captain Talbot stated that it was from the President of the United States, as did Mr. Chew, and was delivered to him on the 6th instant at Washington, and this was read in their presence and admitted.

F. W. PICKENS.

- - - - - - - - - -

As documented by Official Records, Lincoln's special messenger, Mr. Robert S. Chew of the State Dept., delivered Lincoln's lie on April 8, 1861.

As documented by Official Records, military orders had already been issued to reinforce Fort Sumter (and Pickens).

The message delivered by Mr. Chew was a documented lie. Lincoln subsequently repeated that lie to Congress.

[Lincoln 4 Jul 1861 special message to Congress] |LINK

It is thus seen that the assault upon, and reduction of, Fort Sumter, was, in no sense, a matter of self defence on the part of the assailants. They well knew that the garrison in the Fort could, by no possibility, commit aggression upon them. They knew—they were expressly notified—that the giving of bread to the few brave and hungry men of the garrison, was all which would on that occasion be attempted, unless themselves, by resisting so much, should provoke more.

Below are the rather elaborate plans to deliver bread.

Official Records, Operations in Charleston Harbor, S.C., Series 1, Volume 1, Page 236.

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY Washington, D.C., April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. Henry L. Scott, A.D.C. [Aide de Camp], New York

SIR: This letter will be handed to you by Capt. G.V. Fox, ex-officer of the Navy, and a gentleman of high standing, as well as possessed of extraordinary nautical ability. He is charged by high authority here with the command of an expedition, under cover of certain ships of war, whose object is to re-inforce Fort Sumter.

To embark with Captain Fox you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about two hundred, to be immediately organized at Fort Columbus, with a competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence. A large surplus of the latter — indeed, as great as the vessels of the expedition can take — with other necessaries, will be needed for the augmented garrison of Fort Sumter.

The subsistence and other supplies should be assorted like those which were provided by you and Captain Ward of the Navy for a former expedition. Consult Captain Fox and Major Eaton on the subject, and give all necessary orders in my name to fit out the expedition, except that the hiring of vessels will be left to others.

Some fuel must be shipped. Oil, artillery, implements, fuses, cordate, slow-match, mechanical levers, and gins, &c., should also be put on board.

Consult, also, if necessary, confidentially, colonel Tompkins and Major Thornton.

Respectfully, yours,

Winfield Scott

- - - - - - - - - -

Official Records, Navy, Ser. I, Vol. 4, pg 107

Cooperation of the Navy in the relief of Fort Pickens, April 12 and 17, 1861.

Order of General Scott, U. S. Army, to Colonel Brown, U. S. Army, appointed to command Department of Florida, regarding reenforcement of Fort Pickens.

Headquarters of the Army,

Washington, April 1, 1861.

Sir : You have been designated to take command of an expedition to reenforce and hold Fort Pickens, in the harbor of Pensacola. You will proceed with the least possible delay to that place, and you will assume command of all the land forces of the United States within the limits of the State of Florida. You will proceed to New York, where steam transportation for four companies will be engaged, and, putting on board such supplies as you can ship, without delay proceed at once to your destination. The engineer company of sappers and miners; Brevet Major Hunt's Company M, Second Artillery; Captain Johns's Company C, Third Infantry; Captain Clitz's Company E, Third Infantry, will embark with you in the first steamer. Other troops and full supplies will be sent after you as soon as possible.

Captain Meigs will accompany you as engineer, and will remain with you until you are established in Fort Pickens, when he will return to resume his duties in this city. The other members of your staff will be Assistant Surgeon John Campbell, medical staff; Captain Rufus Ingalls, assistant quartermaster; Captain Henry F. Clarke, assistant commissary of subsistence ; Brevet Captain George L. Hartsuff, assistant adjutant-general, and First Lieutenant George T. Balch, ordnance offtcer.

The object and destination of this expedition will be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known. The naval officers in the Gulf will be instructed to cooperate with you, and to afford every facility in their power for the accomplishment of the object of the expedition, which is the security of Fort Pickens against all attacks, foreign and domestic. Should a shot be fired at you, you will defend yourself and your expedition at whatever hazard, and, if needful for such defense, inflict upon the assailants all the damage in your power within the range of your guns.

Lieutenant-Colonel Keyes, military secretary, will be authorized to give all necessary orders and to call upon the staff department for every requisite material and transportation, and other steamers will follow that on which you embark, to carry reenforcements, supplies, and provisions for the garrison of Fort Pickens for six months. Captain Barry's battery will follow as soon as a vessel can be fitted for its transportation. Two or three foot companies will embark at the same time with the battery. All the companies will be filled up to the maximum standard, those to embark first from the recruits in the harbor of New York. The other companies will be filled, if practicable, with instructed soldiers.

You will make Fort Jefferson your main depot and base of operations. You will be careful not to reduce too much the means of the fortresses in the Florida Reef, as they are deemed of greater importance than even Fort Pickens. The naval officers in the Gulf will be instructed to cooperate with you in every way in order to insure the safety of Fort Pickens, Fort Jefferson, and Fort Taylor. You will fully communicate with them for this end, and will exhibit to them the authority of the President herewith.

The President directs that you be assigned to duty from this date according to your brevet rank in the Army.

With great confidence in your judgment zeal, and intelligence, I remain, respectfully,

WINFIELD SCOTT.

Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown, U. S. Army,
Washington, D. C.

April 2, 1861.

Approved:
Abraham Lincoln.

[Enclosure.]

Executive Mansion, Washington, April 1, 1861.

All officers of the Army and Navy to whom this order may be exhibited will aid by every means in their power the expedition under the command of Colonel Harvey Brown, supplying him with men and material, and cooperating with him as he may desire.

Abraham Lincoln.

This entry in the ship's log of the USS Supply is for the night prior to the events at Fort Sumter. It documents an invasion force landing in Florida, in violation of the existing armistice, before the events in South Carolina.

USS SUPPLY SHIPS LOG - APRIL 11, 1861

Official Records, Navy, Ser. 1, Vol. 4, pg. 210

Abstract log of the U. S. sbip Supply, January 9 to June 14, 1861, Commander Henry Walke, commanding.

April 11. — At 9 p. m. the Brooklyn got Underway and stood in toward the harbor, and during the night landed the troops and marines on board, to reenforce Fort Pickens.

[DoodleDawg]

Fort Sumter was being supplied by a local merchant, McSweeney under a contract pre-existing the troop movement to Fort Sumter.

The Official Record clearly documents that supplies were cut off on April 2nd by order of Confederate Secretary of War Walker.

Official Records, Operations in Charleston Harbor, S.C., Series 1, Volume 1, Page 285.

[rustbucket]

SCOTUS post-war musings on when, legalistically, civil war started are irrelevant to facts on the ground at the time, as indeed SCOTUS itself recognized:

"That the civil war had an existence commencing before that date must be accepted as an established fact. "

Civil War? A civil war is “a war between citizens of the same country. That was not the case in this instance. Southern states had seceded and formed a new government with their own Confederate Constitution, much the same way that the original 13 states had seceded from the Articles of Confederation and formed the United States of America under the US Constitution. The US under Lincoln basically sent ships of war and soldiers into what was by then a foreign country. The US under Buchanan sent a ship containing 200 armed soldiers hiding below decks into the waters of South Carolina, which was no longer a state in the US.

In the 1875 ruling you cite, SCOTUS was ignoring the fact that South Carolina and other Southern states had seceded and formed their own government. The Constitution did not prohibit states from seceding, nor did it give the central government or states that might not have seceded the power to stop other states from seceding. As a ratified amendment, the Tenth Amendment overrode any conflict with earlier parts of the Constitution that might claim otherwise.

As you may remember. Republicans in Congress in 1860 and 1861 proposed amendments to the Constitution that would have put restrictions on secession that would make it much harder for a state or states to secede, but neither of the proposed amendments passed. The Republican Congress-critters knew that states had the right to secede under the Tenth Amendment, but the Republicans wanted to stop secession somehow.

It appears that, in the ruling you cite, SCOTUS ignored the Tenth Amendment.

South Carolina cited the Tenth Amendment in their Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union document that was adopted December 20, 1860. (my red bold below):

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. ... This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

Senator Jefferson Davis argued the same on the floor of the US Senate on January 10, 1861:

”...the tenth amendment of the Constitution declared that all which had not been delegated was reserved to the States or to the people. Now, I ask where among the delegated grants to the Federal Government do you find any power to coerce a state; where among the provisions of the Constitution do you find any prohibition on the part of a State to withdraw; and if you find neither one nor the other, must not this power be in that great depository, the reserved rights of the States? How was it ever taken out of that source of all power to the Federal Government? It was not delegated to the Federal Government; it was not prohibited to the States; it necessarily remains, then, among the reserved powers of the States.”

Take this situation to the present day. What would you advise, BroJoeK, if Iran were to send ship or a fleet of warships toward New York City and tell the US if you refuse entry to them we will force our way in. One of those ships might contain an atomic bomb or lots of troops to invade the city. You would stop it, right? Obliterate it. So would Trump.

You could rely on the Prize Cases (1863) and cite from it: “If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force... without waiting for any special legislative authority.”

Basically, that was the situation President Jefferson Davis faced in 1861 with Lincoln’s advancing fleet that Lincoln had told the Governor would force its way into Charleston Harbor. The US at that time was a foreign nation to the Confederacy.

I remember your previous conversation with Kalamata [Link]

>>Joey wrote: "And that is pure insanity, nothing else, typical of the way Democrats think & argue. In fact, President Jefferson signed the 1807 Insurrect Act authorizing the President to suppress rebellions."

Rebellion is not secession, Joey, except in the rhetoric of tyrant and their groupies. Besides, I am not referring to the secessionists, who were states within a foreign nation at the time Lincoln invaded.

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher quoting McCrea: "It is to be observed that the proclamation of April 15, 1861, was not a distinct recognition of an existing state of war."

Lincoln did not call it "war" on either April 15 or April 19, but SCOTUS later chose to view April 19 as "war" but not April 15?
The fact is that Confederate war existed against the United States long before either April 19 or 15.

SCOTUS in McStea: "No declaration of war was ever made.
The President recognized its existence by proclaiming a blockade on the 19th of April; and it then became his duty as well as his right to direct how it should be carried on"

In fact, Lincoln also recognized war's existence on April 15, and for that matter on March 4, the day after his inauguration.
Indeed, most Unionists recognized war's existence after the January 9, 1861 Star of the West incident, and were ready to respond to it, had not President Buchanan deliberately damped down public anger.

But here's the key point going back to rustbucket's original claims: no SCOTUS decision or act of Congress then or since ever found President Lincoln's words & actions unconstitutional in responding to Confederate acts of war against the United States.

[rustbucket]

The Official Record clearly documents that supplies were cut off on April 2nd by order of Confederate Secretary of War Walker.

If you read further in the link you supplied, the supplies were not cut off until April 7, the day after the Confederates received information from a highly positioned friend in Washington on April 6 (I don't know who the friend was) that

Charleston, April 6, 1861.

L. P. Walker:
The following telegraph I have just received from Washington:

Positively determined not to withdraw Anderson. Supplies go immediately, supported by a naval force under Stringham if their landing is restricted.

A FRIEND.

That was forwarded to Walker by A. G. Magrath

Walker sent a subsequent telegraph to Beauregard on April 8 saying "Under no circumstances are you to allow provisions to be sent to Fort Sumter."

Beauregard replies to Walker on April 8 that "Anderson's provisions stopped yesterday."

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "This is unseemly nonsense. Fort Sumter was being supplied by a local merchant, McSweeney under a contract pre-existing the troop movement to Fort Sumter.
Buchanan and Lincoln set afoot a mission to reinforce Fort Sumter (and Fort Pickens), not to resupply."

And yet, Fort Sumter's commander, Maj. Anderson, reported to President Lincoln on the day after his inauguration, March 4, 1861, that Anderson had supplies enough for only another six weeks, and then must surrender the fort.
So, Anderson's need for supplies was apparent to Lincoln, but whether such supplies would include reinforcements, Lincoln eventually decided conditionally -- no reinforcements if no Confederate opposition to resupplies.
Reinforce if opposed by Confederate force.

But the bottom line is that the US had as much right to resupply or reinforce Fort Sumter as we do today in, for example, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Confederate acts of war against the fort or the US Navy were just that: acts of war.

[rustbucket]

But here's the key point going back to rustbucket's original claims: no SCOTUS decision or act of Congress then or since ever found President Lincoln's words & actions unconstitutional in responding to Confederate acts of war against the United States.

Perhaps you are forgetting that Congress was dominated by Republicans and that the Republicans subsequently packed the Supreme Court with ten members instead of the usual maximum number of nine.

And, of course, after Lincoln's death, the Supreme Court issued Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866). SCOTUS ruled that trying civilians in military tribunals when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional, something that happened under Lincoln.

From Brittanica: "Milligan’s lawyers sought a writ of habeas corpus, contesting the constitutionality of the military trial. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which unanimously declared that the president had no power to set up military tribunals in secure areas where civil courts were functioning. A majority of the Court also declared that Congress, too, lacked such authority. Milligan, as a consequence, had been deprived of his constitutional right to trial by jury and was freed after 18 months in jail."

A part of Ex Parte Milligan that is worth remembering is the sentence,

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."

[OIFVeteran]

Sorry but just proclaiming your a nation doesn’t make you a nation. You have to either be recognized as a nation by the people your separating from or win your war for independence. The southern rebels did neither.

The southern states were under the control of rebels who attacked the duly elected government of the United States of America. They got the a*& whupping they deserved.

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "Perhaps you are forgetting that Congress was dominated by Republicans and that the Republicans subsequently packed the Supreme Court with ten members instead of the usual maximum number of nine."

In my universe most Republicans are good people, while Democrats are uniformly evil.
So, for practical purposes, we can't have too many Republicans, or too few Democrats.

rustbucket: "And, of course, after Lincoln's death, the Supreme Court issued Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866).
SCOTUS ruled that trying civilians in military tribunals when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional, something that happened under Lincoln."

Sure, you win that point, but it's only common sense -- military tribunals should operate only where normal civilian courts cannot.
I also acknowledge that Crazy Roger Taney didn't like the way Lincoln handled habeas corpus, but that was just one lunatic's opinion, not the Supreme Court and certainly not Congress.

[rustbucket]

In my universe most Republicans are good people, while Democrats are uniformly evil.
So, for practical purposes, we can't have too many Republicans, or too few Democrats.

I've been fighting Democrats my whole life. I grew up in the South that was ruled by segregationist Democrats. I am a conservative Republican who has gone to State Republican Conventions as a delegate. I have walked the streets handing out Republican election material. I have been a Republican poll official in two states. I despise Democrats.

I think what you don't yet realize that in some ways the two parties have switched places since the Civil War. I posted to you before what a Republican Representative did in the House of Representatives in 1860 (my bold below, but I did not activate the links below that I did before - too tired):

June 22, 1860. Bedford Gazette, Bedford, PA. The Covode Committee falling into Contempt. (Column 4)

The effort made by the self-righteous Covode to bring the Administration of President Buchanan into disrepute, through the instrumentality of a one-sided, partizan Committee, under the modus operandi of which, the said Covode was suffered to be prosecutor, witness, attorney, judge and part of the jury, has excited nothing but the contempt of all intelligent and liberal minded men. Many of the Opposition newspapers regard Covode as an arrant hypocrite and deprecate his bare-faced attempt to make party capital at the expense of the honor and character of our government.

The following from the Philadelphia Evening Journal, the organ of the Bell party in Philadelphia, we commend to the admirers of the immaculate Covode:

"The fact is, as every unprejudiced and/discerning man must see, that the present "Republican" majority in the House of Representatives, have employed their power during this session of Congress, chiefly in ex parte inquisitions into the conduct of the President and his Cabinet, in which the inquisitorial committees were packed with the enemies of the accused parties, whose action was so shaped as to elicit every fact that was likely to discredit the Administration, while every fact that would have been exculpatory, was suppressed. And all this was done, too, with the foreknowledge that whatever the result of the inquest might be, the parties originating it had the power, by a final vote in the House, to pass and record a sentence of condemnation, and with a foregone purpose to give the whole proceedings that damning issue.

The event, as exhibited in the resolutions passed yesterday, in censure of the President and the Secretary of the Navy, has consummated the design of the conspirators, and the journals of Congress are again disgraced with a denunciatory judgment, pronounced against the Executive of the nation, by a partisan majority in one branch of the Legislature, against every principle of constitutional right and power, and every rule of ordinary judicial propriety and justice.

Comment on this shameful abuse of the power of a majority in a single chamber of Congress is unnecessary. It is a striking example of abuse in those who have set themselves up as the special reformers of abuses. Those who will audaciously transgress all established limitations of legislative jurisdiction, and usurp functions denied to them by the fundamental law of the Government, for the purpose of exercising a malignant and dishonorable censorship over a co-ordinate department of the Administration, are not fit to be trusted with too much power.

Moreover, the people will doubtless see that the whole aim of the "Covode," and other like has been to bring the President and his Constitutional advisers into public contempt, merely to provoke a counter current of feeling in favor of the "Republican" party, and, perceiving this fact, we trust that the only and real purpose of a shameful scheme of persecution will fail of realization.”

////////////////////////

And Wikipedia says the following about John Covode, the guy who created the above kind of attack on a President (Link):

"Covode is most famous for chairing a committee to investigate the possibility of impeaching President James Buchanan during the spring and summer of 1860."

Sound like today's Democrats? As I've said before, the Republicans under Lincoln actually packed the Supreme Court by increasing the number of members. Sound like what FDR wanted to do and today's Democrats have mentioned doing?

Lincoln voted to condemn Democrat President James K. Polk for instigating the 1846-48 war with Mexico. Apparently, Lincoln saw how easily Polk had done that and then later did the same thing himself in provoking war with the South in 1861.

The good thing that happened because of Lincoln's war was the end of slavery. However, the nature of government changed to one where the states were no longer a strong check on the power of the central government. That wasn't a good thing.

Re my point about Milligan, you said "Sure, you win that point, but it's only common sense -- military tribunals should operate only where normal civilian courts cannot." That went on during the war, but Republicans didn't stop it. However, I have posted a case in the South where a Confederate District Court took away a case from a Confederate military court because the case involved charges against a civilian where the civil courts were operating. The Confederates were more enlightened in that situation than the Republicans.

Of course, what with Lincoln throwing editors, reporters, and civilians into jails without charges for saying something he didn't like, even arresting a Congressman, maybe the rank and file Republican officials and regular judges didn't want to get on Lincoln's naughty list for fear of getting arrested themselves. Why did Congress later authorize Lincoln to suspend the privilege of habeas corpus if he already had the power to suspend it as he had done in 1861.

As I've pointed out before, Lincoln did a number of unconstitutional things in getting the war started before he called Congress back into session on July 4, 1861. Congress does not have the Constitutional power to approve violations of the Constitution.

[rustbucket]

[rustbucket}: "If it were "fake-news," why didn't any of the thirty members of the Baltimore delegation that met with Lincoln on that occasion object to the content of the Sun article?"

[BroJoeK] Because they were all together in on it.

Bwahahahah!

[You again]: Any President is naturally concerned about Federal revenues, but Lincoln never elsewhere said that was the specific reason for his actions at Fort Sumter.

As I've pointed out to you before, Lincoln told the Virginian Baldwin essentially the same message about revenue before the expedition to Fort Sumter. Although, as you point out, Baldwin testified about that after the war and after he had fought for the Confederacy. However, others in Virginia affirmed that Baldwin had told them the same thing right after Baldwin returned to Virginia after seeing Lincoln.

One can be pro-Union before Lincoln provoked the war at Fort Sumter (as Baldwin was) and pro-Virginia after Lincoln starts the war and Virginia secedes (as Baldwin became). Robert E. Lee wasn't in favor of secession from the Union either, but he went with his home state Virginia instead of accepting the command of the Union Army. Lee did not want to fight against his home state, his family, his relatives. Perhaps that doesn't make sense to you, but it does to me.

Lincoln apparently forgot the argument that Alexander Hamilton made in the New York Ratification convention (if he ever knew it):

It has been well observed, that 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 not they have influence to procure assistance, especially from those States which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this 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 its 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.

Interestingly, Hamilton was talking there about coercing states for revenue. Gasp! The R-word that drove Lincoln to start the war to get Northerners to rally 'round the flag, so that he could as commander-in-chief blockade the South to block their revenue.

And Hamilton, Jay, and Madison, the three authors of the Federalist Papers that explained the Constitution and argued for its ratification, all voted for ratification documents in 1788 that said that their states could resume or reassume their powers of government. And Madison proposed to Congress what became the Tenth Amendment.

[woodpusher]

Point is, wars exist regardless of declarations, not all military actions require Congress's prior approvals, and there are never formal declarations of war in cases of rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence" and/or treason.

SCOTUS post-war musings on when, legalistically, civil war started are irrelevant to facts on the ground at the time, as indeed SCOTUS itself recognized:

Point is, SCOTUS stated, "But in a civil more than in a foreign war, or a war declared, it is important that unequivocal notice should be given of the illegality of traffic or commercial intercourse; for, in a civil war, only the government can know when the in­surrection has assumed the character of war." The existence or dissolution legal relations between a partnership depended upon when the government recognized a war existed; not upon anything else.

It was certainly not recognized by the proclamation of April 15 or anything before that date, and was certainly recognized not later than July.

Until the two or more parties involved in a public war recognize a state of public war, the rest of the world is not informed that there is a public war in existence. The rights and responsibilities of foreign nations are different pertaining to a national civil war and a public war where the United States government recognizes the opposing party as a belligerent power.

[woodpusher]

[woodpusher #27] "This is unseemly nonsense. Fort Sumter was being supplied by a local merchant, McSweeney under a contract pre-existing the troop movement to Fort Sumter. Buchanan and Lincoln set afoot a mission to reinforce Fort Sumter (and Fort Pickens), not to resupply."

[BroJoeK #32] And yet, Fort Sumter's commander, Maj. Anderson, reported to President Lincoln on the day after his inauguration, March 4, 1861, that Anderson had supplies enough for only another six weeks, and then must surrender the fort.

Major Anderson was receiving supplies under contrqact from Mr. Daniel McSweeney from January 1861 until the deliveries were cut off on April 7, 1861. Major Anderson may have had six weeks stores on hand, and you may have six weeks food in your pantry. If you procure more food in the next six weeks, you will not face starvation six weeks from now. However, if you start a war that causes your food supplies to be cut off, you have six weeks before you need to be resupplied.

The provisioning began in January 1861.

At page 144 - 146.

[Inclosure No. 1]

Executive Office, Department of War,
Charleston, January 19, 1861.

Maj. Robert Anderson:

Sir: I am instructed by his excellency the governor to inform you that he has directed an officer of the State to procure and carry over with your mails each day to Fort Sumter such supplies of fresh meat and vegetables as you may indicate.

I am, sir, respectfully yours,

D. F. JAMISON.

[Inclosure No. 2.]

Fort Sumter, S. C, January 19, 1861.

Hon. D. F. Jamison,
Executive Office, Department of War

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of this date, stating that you are authorized by his excellency the governor to inform me that he has directed an officer of the State to procure and carry over with my mails each day to Fort Sumter such supplies of fresh meat and vegetables as I may indicate. I confess that I am at a loss to understand the latter part of this message, as I have not represented in any quarter that we were in need of such supplies. As commandant of a military post, I can only have my troops furnished with fresh beef in the manner prescribed by law, and I am compelled, therefore, with due thanks to his excellency, respectfully to decline his offer. If his suggestion is based upon a right, then I must procure the meat as we have been in the habit of doing for years, under an unexpired contract with Mr. McSweeney, a Charleston butcher, who would, I presume, if permitted, deliver the meat, &c., at this fort or at Fort Johnson, at the usual periods for such delivery, four times in ten days. If the permissiou is founded on courtesy and civility, I am compelled respectfully to decline accepting it, with a reiteration of my thanks for having made it. In connection with this subject, I deem it not improper respectfully to suggest that his excellency may do an act of humanity and great kindness if he will permit one of the New York steamers to stop with a lighter and take the women and children of this garrison to that city. The confinement within the walls of this work, and the impossibility of my having it in my power to have them furnished with the proper and usual articles of food, will, I fear, soon produce sickness among them. The compliance with this request will confer a favor upon a class of persons to whom similar indulgences are always granted, even during a siege in time of actual war, and will be duly appreciated by me.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding Fort Sumter.

P. S.—I hope that the course I have deemed it my duty to take in reference to the supplies will have a tendency to allay an excitement which, judging from the tenor of the paragraphs in to-day's paper, I fear they are trying to get up in the city.

[Inclosure No. 3.]

Headquarters Quartermaster's Department, Charleston, January 19, 1801.

Major Anderson :

Dear Sir: Inclosed please find copy of letter from Secretary of War. Not waiting your request, I shall send by the mail-boat in the morning two hundred pounds of beef and a lot of vegetables. I requested Lieutenant Talbot to ask you to let me know this evening what supplies you would wish sent daily.

Very respectfully,

L. M. HATCH,
Quartermaster-General, South Carolina Militia.

[Inclosure No. 4.]

Headquarters Quartermaster's Department, Charleston, January 19, 18G1.

Colonel Hatch,
Quartermaster-General:

You are ordered to procure and send down with the mails for Fort Sumter tomorrow a sufficient quantity of fresh meat and vegetables to last the garrison of Fort Sumter for forty-eight hours, and inform Major Anderson that you will purchase and take down every day such provisions from the city market as he may indicate.

D. F. JAMISON.

[Inclosure No. 5.]

Fort Sumter, S. C, January 20, 1861.

Col. L. M. Hatch,
Quartermaster-General:

Dear Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 19th instant, and also to state that as no arrangements have been made by me with your government in reference to supplies for this post. I feel compelled to decline the reception of those supplies. I wrote to the honorable Secretary of War yesterday in reference to this matter.

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

R. ANDERSON,
Major, First U. S. Artillery, Commanding.

- - - - - - - - - -

At Page 151

[Inclosure No. 21.]

Executive Office, Department of War,
Charleston, January 21, 1861.

Maj. Robert Anderson :

Sir. In offering to permit you to purchase in this city, through the instrumentality of an officer of the State, such fresh supplies of provisions as you might need, his excellency the governor was influenced solely by consideralions of courtesy; and if he had no other motive for refusing to any of your garrison free access to the city to procure such supplies, he would have been moved by prudential reasons for the safety of your people, in preventing a collision between them and our own citizens. As to the manner of procuring your supplies, his excellency is indifferent whether it is done by the officer referred to, or whether your market supplies are delivered to you at Fort Johnson by the butcher whom you say you have before employed. It is only insisted on that the supplies, if sent, shall be carried over in a boat under an officer of the State who takes to Fort Johnson your daily mails. His excellency desires me to say that he willingly accedes to your request as to thewomen and children in Fort Sumter, and that he will afford every facility in his power to enable you to remove them from the fort at any time and in any manner that will be most agreeable to them.

I am, sir, respectfully, yours,

D. F. JAMISON.

- - - - - - - - - -

At page 152

[Inclosure No. 2.]

Fort Sumter, S. C, January 22, 1861.

Hon. D. F. Jamison,
Executive Office, Department of War, Charleston:

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the 21st instant, and to express my gratification at its tenor. I shall direct my staff officer to write to the contractor in reference to his supplying us with beef, and will communicate with you as soon as the necessary preliminaries are arranged, in order that you may then, if you please, give the requisite instructions for carrying them into effect. Be pleased to express to his excellency the governor my thanks for the kind and prompt manner in which he gave his consent to the proposed transfer of the women and children of this garrison. As there are on Sullivan's Island the families of two of our non-commissioned ofiicers, with their furniture, &c., and also a quantity of private property (including some musical instruments—not public property) belonging to this command, which the first commander of Fort Moultrie, Colonel De Saussure, sent me word he had collected and placed under lock and key, it will be necessary to permit the two non-commissioned officers to go to the island to assist in moving their families, &c. The lighter, it occurs to me, which will be needed to take the families to the steamer, had better go to the island for the property there before coming for the women and children here. As we are all very desirous of guarding against causing any unnecessary excitement, it will afford me great pleasure to have everything done in the most quiet way possible. I shall, consequently, cheerfully govern myself, as far as possible, by the views and wishes of his excellency in reference to this matter, and will be pleased to hear from you what they are. It is my wish, if the weather prove favorable, to ship the families in the Saturday steamer, or the first one after that day.

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

ROBEET ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.

- - - - - - - - - -

At page 154

[Inclosure No. 1.]

FORT SUMTER, January 24, 1861.

Mr. Daniel McSweeney:

Sir: I am directed by Major Anderson, commanding this post, to ascertain whether you will furnish such fresh beef and vegetables as may be required here; the beef upon the terms of the contract under which you supplied Fort Moultrie; the vegetables to be purchased by you for us at fair market prices; the whole to be delivered as hitherto, four times in ten days, at some wharf in Charleston, for transportation to Fort Johnson, where it will be received by this garrison. This arrangement, which has been approved by the' governor of South Carolina, it is desired shall go into effect immediately, and if you consent to it, you can send 184 pounds of fresh beef at a time, at such hour and wherever Quartermaster-General Hatch (120 Meeting Street) may advise you. Of the vegetables you will be further directed. Please acknowledge the receipt of this as soon as possible, in order, if necessary, that other arrangements may be made.

Respectfully, your obedient servant,

T. SEYMOUR,
Captain, U. S. Army.

- - - - - - - - - -

The provisioning ended April 7, 1861.

At pp. 247-248:

No. 96.

Fort Sumter, S. C. April 7, 1861.
(Received A. G. O., April 13.)

Col. L. Thomas, Adjutant-General U. S. Army:

Colonel: I have the honor to report that we do not see any work going on around us. There was more activity displayed by the guard boats last night than has been done for some time. Three of them remained at anchor all night and until after reveille this morning, near the junction of the three channels. You will see by the inclosed letter, just received from Brigadier-General Beauregard that we shall not get any more supplies from the city of Charleston. I hope that they will continue to let us have our mails as long as we remain. I am glad to be enabled to report that there have been no new cases of dysentery, and that the sick-list only embraces six cases to-day.

I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedieut servant,

ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.

[Inclosure.]

Headquarters of the Provisional Army, C. S.,
Charleston, S. C, April 7, 1861.

Maj. Robert Anderson,

Commanding at Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, S. C. :

Sir: In compliance with orders from the Confederate Government at Montgomery, I have the honor to inform you that, in consequence of the delays and apparent vacillations of the United States Government at Washington relative to the evacuation of Fort Sumter, no further communications for the purposes of supply with this city from the fort and with the fort from this city will be permitted from and after this day. The mails, however, will continue to be transmitted as heretofore, until further instructions from the Confederate Government.

I remain, sir, very respectfullv, your obedient servant,

G. T. BEAUREGARD,
Brigadier-General, Commanding.

Page 289:

Charleston, April 8, 1861.

L. P. Walker:

Authorized messenger from Lincoln just informed Governor Pickens and myself that provisions would be sent to Sumter peaceably, otherwise by force.

G. T, BEAUREGARD.

- - - - - - - - - -

Montgomery, April 8, 1861.

General Beauregard, Charleston:

Under no circumstances are you to allow provisions to be sent to Fort Sumter.

L. P. WALKER.

- - - - - - - - - -

Charleston, April 8, 1861.

Hon. L. P. Walker:

Anderson's provisions stopped yesterday. So answer from him. I am calling out balance of contingent troops.

G. T. BEAUREGARD.

Before provisions were stopped, the Confederate government was well aware that Lincoln had sent multiple fleets of warships to reinforce Forts Sumter and Pickens.

Page 290:

Hdqrs. Provisional Army Confederate States,
Charleston, S. C., April 8, 1861.

General L. P. Walker, Secretary of War, Montgomery, Ala.:

Sir: The War Department letter of the 6th instant has been received.

I send herewith a copy of the letter addressed yesterday to Major Robert Anderson, stopping his provisions from this city, in obedience to the instructions of the Department.* He has not yet answered it, probably on account of the prevailing bad weather, or perhaps he wishes to await the orders of the United States Government.

Lieutenant Talbot was allowed to go to Washington in order to diminish as much as practicable the number of Major Anderson's officers, and in the hope that he would communicate to the Government at Washington their true condition in Fort Sumter, which Governor Pickens and myself have reasons to believe is not satisfactory to them.

On account of the unfortunate publication this morning of the proceedings of the State Convention of South Carolina, containing a detailed report of the State secretary of war, giving the exact condition, strength, and number of batteries and troops collected for the defense of this harbor, I have called out the balance of the five thousand men to which I have been limited by my instructions of the 1st ultimo—a measure rendered still more necessary on account of the warlike preparations at present being made by the United States Government with so much mystery.

I remain, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

G. T. BEAUREGARD,
Brigadier-General, Gommanding.

* See inclosure to Anderson to Thomas, April 7, "Union Correspondence," &c., p. 248.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[woodpusher]

Lincoln did not call it "war" on either April 15 or April 19, but SCOTUS later chose to view April 19 as "war" but not April 15?
The fact is that Confederate war existed against the United States long before either April 19 or 15.

A war exists when the government recognizes that it exists.

[I]n a civil more than in a foreign war, or a war declared, it is important that unequivocal notice should be given of the illegality of traffic or commercial intercourse; for, in a civil war, only the government can know when the in­surrection has assumed the character of war."

Matthews v. McStea, 91 U.S. 7 (1875)

On April 15, Lincoln proclaimed a civil disturbance. He addressed unlawful combinations of people, not states in insurrection or rebellion. He ordered the unlawful combinations to disperse. The troops were sent in to enforce the federal laws to collect the revenue. They amounted to the largest posse comitatus in history, to assist the non-existent marshals of non-existent federal courts, and they were empowered with the same powers as federal marshals. The pronouncement followed the language for a civil disturbance.

There was a legal problem, namely U.S. Conhst., Art. 4, Sec. 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

No state had been invaded. No state legislature had applied to the federal government for assistance. No state governor had applied for assistance because the legislature was unable to be convened. It is sort of the problem President Trump faces.

U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8., Cl. 15.

[Congress shall have the Power:] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, supress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

insurrection. (15c) A violent revolt against an oppressive authority, usu. a government. ...

“Insurrection is distinguished from rout, riot, and offense connected with mob violence by the fact that in insurrection there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government, while crimes growing out of mob violence, however serious they may be and however numerous the participants, are simply unlawful acts in disturbance of the peace which do not threaten the stability of the government or the existence of political society.” 77 C.J.S. Riot; Insurrection § 29, at 579 (1994).

Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed., 2019. CJS stands for Corpus Juris Secundum, a legal encyclopedia.

Insurrection Act of 1807, 2 Stat 443

STATUTE II.

March 3, 1807.

Land and na­val forces to be employed for suppressing in­surrections.

CHAP. XXXIX.—An Act authorizing the employment of the land and naval forces of the United States, in cases of insurrections.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases of insur­rection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection or of causing the laws to be duly executed,

it shall be law­ful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect.

APPROVED, March 3, 1807.

Combinations of people are not states or territories.

The 1861 revision post-dated the Lincoln proclamations.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/37th-congress/session-1/c37s1ch25.pdf

INSURRECTION, Act to Provide for Suppression of Rebellion (29 Jul 1861) 12 Stat 281

CHAP. XXV. — An Act to provide for the Suppression of Rebellion against and Resistance July 29, 1861. to the Laws of the United States, and to amend the Act entitled “An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union," &c., passed February twenty-eight, seventeen hundred and ninety-five.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever, by reason of unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages of persons, or rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States, it shall become impracticable, in the judgment of the President of the United States, to enforce, by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, the laws of the United States within any State or Territory of the United States, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of any or all the States of the Union, and to employ such parts of the land and naval forces of the United States as he may deem necessary to enforce the faithful execution of the laws of the United States, or to suppress such rebellion in whatever State or Territory there­of the laws of the United States may be forcibly opposed, or the execution thereof forcibly obstructed.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever, in the judgment of the President, it may be necessary to use the military force hereby di­rected to be employed and called forth by him, the President shall forthwith, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes, within a limited time.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the militia so called into the service of the United States shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war as the troops of the United States, and be continued in the service of the United States until discharged by proclamation of the President: Provided, That such continuance in service shall not extend be­yond sixty days after the commencement of the next regular session of Congress, unless Congress shall expressly provide by law therefor: And provided further, That the militia so called into the service of the United Pay, &c. States shall, during their time of service, be entitled to the same pay, rations, and allowances for clothing as are or may be established by law for the army of the United States.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That every officer, non-commissioned officer, or private of the militia, who shall fail to obey the orders of the President of the United States in any of the cases before recited, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one year’s pay, and not less than one month’s pay, to be determined and adjudged by a court-martial; and such officer shall be liable to be cashiered by a sentence of court-martial, and be in­capacitated from holding a commission in the militia for a term not ex­ceeding twelve months, at the discretion of the court; and such non-com­missioned officer and private shall be liable to imprisonment, by a like sentence, on failure of payment of the fine adjudged against them, for one calendar month for every twenty-five dollars of such fine.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That courts-martial for the trial of militia shall be composed of militia officers only.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That, all fines to be assessed as aforesaid shall be certified by the presiding officer of the court-martial, and shall be collected and paid over according to the provisions and in the manner prescribed by the seventh and eighth sections of the act of February twenty-eight, seventeen hundred and ninety-five, to which this is an amendment.

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That the marshals of the several United States, and their deputies, shall have the same powers in executing the laws of the United States as sheriffs and their deputies in the several States, have by law, in executing the laws of the respective States.

SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That sections two, three, and four of the act entitled “An Act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, and to repeal the act now in force for those purposes,” approved Febru­ary twenty-eight, seventeen hundred and ninety-five, and so much of the residue of said act and of all other acts as conflict with this act are here­by repealed.

APPROVED, July 29,1861.