Posted on 05/01/2022 6:49:16 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
FORTRESS MONROE, Tuesday, April 29.
There can be no doubt of the capture of New Orleans. The Southern newspapers speak of it in the most dismal strain, and demand at the mystery of the surrender of the city shall be explained.
The [???] Day Book, [???].
[???] of the [???]. If [???] future privation to all classes of society, our most to be lamented of all, it threatens our army supplies."
The raising of meat, and corn and wheat instead of cotton and tobacco, is earnestly recommended by the disconsolate editor.
The Richmond Dispatch, of yesterday, says:
"When the enemy's fleet arrived opposite the City, and demanded its surrender, Gen. LOVELL refused, and fell back to Camp Moore, after destroying all the cotton and stores."
The Iron-clad vessel Mississippi was burnt, to prevent her falling into the hands of the enemy. Nothing is said about the Louisiana, but it is supposed that she was scuttled. It was rumored that she was sunk at the first fire.
Camp Moore is at Tangapaha, 78 miles from New-Orleans, on the Jackson Railroad
The following are the latest dispatches in to-day's papers:
MOBILE, Sunday, April 27.
The Yankee Commodore, FARRAGUT, promised the Secretary of the Mayor of New-Orleans, who visited the fleet by a flag of truce, to make a renewed demand for the surrender of the city, but he has not done so up to this hour -- 5 o'clock..
Our ship, the McRae, came up from the forts, under a flag of truce, with forty of our wounded. She communicated with the Federal flagship, but the result is unknown.
It is rumored that the Federals refused to let her return.
The rumor that Fort Pike has been evacuated and blown up is unreliable.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
First session: November 21, 2015. Last date to add: May 2025.
Reading: Self-assigned. Recommendations made and welcomed.
Posting history, in reverse order
https://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:homerjsimpson/index?tab=articles
To add this class to or drop it from your schedule notify Admissions and Records (Attn: Homer_J_Simpson) by reply or freepmail.
Link to previous New York Times thread
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4059189/posts
The print quality of this edition is bad. I will add links to a few other items of interest below. The print quality of those is even worse than the ones I copied. Hopefully the Times Machine transcriber bot did a reasonably readable job on them-HJS.
Important from the South: More Rebel Accounts of the Capture of New-Orleans – 2
From Below New-Orleans: Letter from Our Correspondent With the Mortar Fleet – 2-4
News from Fortress Monroe: Arrival of Union Refugees from Tennessee – 4
The Impending Battle: Highly Important from Pittsburgh Landing – 5
Important from the Mississippi: Probable Naval Engagement Near Fort Wright – 5
News from Washington: A Congressional Vote of Censure Against Ex-Secretary Cameron – 5-6
Editorial: The War a War of the People against the Aristocracy – 6-7
Editorial: The News from New-Orleans – 7-8
Editorial: The Legislative Address – 8
Rebel Treatment of Our Fallen Soldiers – 8
Military Police for Southern Cities – 8
Operations in the Virginia Valley-The Progress of Gen. Banks – 8-9
The Commanders of the New-Orleans Expedition – 9
ARMING THE NEGROES OF THE SOUTH.; Inauguration of the Policy in South Carolina
FROM THE YORKTOWN PENINSULA
https://www.nytimes.com/1862/05/01/archives/from-the-yorktown-peninsula.html?searchResultPosition=1
DEPARTMENT OF THE SHENANDOAH.; Reception of the New-Orleans News
THE PRESIDENT AND THE ARREST OF GEN. STONE
Very sorry to have missed the pleasure of seeing THE BELGIAN GIANT and COMMODORE NUTT (lower right).
A lengthy editorial, but well worth reading.
It makes the same point often posted by DiogenesLamp & others, that Civil War is less about one region versus others, than about class warfare, the few rich versus the many poor.
But unlike our Lost Cause defenders, the Editors do not identify "the rich" as "Northeastern Power Brokers", but rather as Southern slave-ocrats, for whom poor Southerners have little love & loyalty.
Their policy prescription is to strike at the Southern slave-ocracy's power base -- slavery -- without harming the masses of poorer white Southerners.
The Editorial demonstrates yet again that Civil War was indeed about slavery, but the recommendations will not work as well as hoped, for the simple reason that Union troops in Confederate lands united Southerners rich & poor against "foreign invaders".
In our Editors' defense, they are expecting Gen. McClellan's forces in Virginia to bring a quick end to war by defeating the main Confederate army & capturing Richmond.
So I'd hate, hate to draw the obvious analogy to a certain current war in (ahem) Europe... no, not going to do that!
Well, for one thing, unlike Confederates, one side today has sympathy & support from nearly the whole world, and is not trying to defend a repugnant social structure.
Such support was critical to Americans in the Revolutionary War, and its absence critical to Confederates in the Civil War.
We'll see how much it helps in Europe today.
Like the other affable Joe, our Brother Joe is mired in confusion caused, probably, from reading too much from his own Ministry of Truth.
Next: Brother Joe provides facts showing Lincoln's 1861 special military operation was designed to attack slave owners and “free the slaves” in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and other Union slave states.
Oddly enough, Lincoln did try to free the slaves in Delaware, just as he did in Washington, DC, through law, using compensated emancipation.
Turns out, the good citizens of Delaware & Kentucky chose not to accept compensation, preferring to wait until their slaves were freed by Constitutional Amendment, without compensation.
Marylanders, West Virginians & Missourians chose to free their slaves on their own, without waiting for a national Constitutional Amendment.
None of those Union slave-states chose rebellion to prevent emancipation.
Union leaders understood from Day One that states in rebellion were driven first to defend slavery, and that attacking their slavery was essential to destroying their rebellion -- so they did.
That's why, Virginia, it was indeed all about slavery.
Sounds like a misread of the teleprompter by the other affable Joe; Jen will need to circle back.
Otherwise, expect our beloved Brother Joe to once again heft the old burden - which has some controversial documentary support - that from the time of Lincoln's “house divided speech” the rail-splitter/nation-splitter had intentions to use the presidency and the military to violently overthrow constitutional slavery; because it was "all about freeing the slaves."
"Contraband of war" was well understood and practiced at least since the Revolutionary War -- i.e., Lord Dunmore's and Sir Clinton's proclamations.
In 1861 Unionists early-on understood that defeating the Confederacy could require destroying their power-base, slavery.
And arguably, Union anti-slavery actions were instrumental in driving many Southerners to support the Confederacy and its war efforts.
So, yes Virginia, when Jefferson Davis chose war at Fort Sumter, he chose a war against Confederates' "peculiar institution".
“”Contraband of war” was well understood and practiced at least since the Revolutionary War — i.e., Lord Dunmore’s and Sir Clinton’s proclamations.”
You made quite a mess of your earlier argument that Lincoln fought a war to “free the slaves” in Delaware. He didn’t.
Now you have decided to improve your argument by favorably comparing Abraham Lincoln to King George, and Robert E. Lee to George Washington.
I’m not totally unsympathetic to that view, but wonder why you think the contraband argument improves your long-standing claim that the north “fought to free the slaves” because of moral imperatives.
As per usual, having lost the argument you resort to bald-faced lies.
And that's because you're a Democrat and lying is what Democrats do -- you guys love to lie, live to lie, lie to live.
jeffersondem: "Now you have decided to improve your argument by favorably comparing Abraham Lincoln to King George, and Robert E. Lee to George Washington."
No... "contraband of war" was not invented by the Brits, much less by King George specifically.
It had been used for centuries to seize enemy property in times of war.
The Brits were particularly skilled at it, using their great fleet to seize enemy ships & cargo as "contraband".
As to comparing Lee favorably to Washington -- no, just the opposite, little Lee could never measure up to the great George Washington in this matter.
That's because Washington responded to Lord Dunmore's and Sir Clinton's proclamations by matching their offer to American slaves -- service in the Continental Army in exchange for emancipation.
The result was, by one observer's account at Yorktown in 1781: one out of four Continental Army soldiers was African-American.
By stark contrast the Confederacy refused to even seriously consider offering their slaves freedom for service until the war's very last days.
So no, little Lee did not measure up to the great George Washington in this matter, or others.
jeffersondem: "I’m not totally unsympathetic to that view, but wonder why you think the contraband argument improves your long-standing claim that the north “fought to free the slaves” because of moral imperatives."
It's both, not an either/or choice.
Republicans were formed from the old Whigs as the first anti-slavery party, and that's why Southern Democrats seceded.
So, when Democrats started war at Fort Sumter, many Republicans quickly saw that their anti-slavery moral imperative could be employed to defeat the Confederacy by declaring Confederate slaves, first, "contraband of war".
That's the truth of this matter.
So, yes Virginia, when Jefferson Davis chose war at Fort Sumter, he chose a war against Confederates' "peculiar institution".
No Virginia, President Lincoln chose war with his Proclamation of April 19, 1865.
When South Carolina repelled a Federal government invasion force on April 12, 1861, it chose to defend the state from invasion.
Article 4, Section 4 provided, "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."
There was never any application from the South Carolina legislature for the Federal forces to come on down. Neither had South Carolina, or any other state, been invaded. There was no declaration of insurrection until April 19, 1861.
The Federal invading force was clearly not authorized under Article 4 of the Constitution.
The words "coercion'' and "invasion'' are in great use about these days. Suppose we were simply to try if we can, and ascertain what, is the meaning of these words. Let us get, if we can, the exact definitions of these words — not from dictionaries, but from the men who constantly repeat them — what things they mean to express by the words. What, then, is "coercion''? What is "invasion''? Would the marching of an army into South Carolina, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit."
— President-Elect Abraham Lincoln, February 11, 1861, CW 4:195, Speech from the Balcony of the Bates House at Indianapolis, Indiana
- - - - - - - - - -
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=480
ANNALS OF CONGRESSNINTH CONGRESS.
SESS. II. CH. 39, 1807.
Page 443
STATUTE II.
March 3, 1807.
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.
April 15, 1861By the President of the United States
A Proclamation.
Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law,
Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details, for this object, will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.
[...]
And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.
It should be noted that there were no courts, or marhals of courts, to assist. All officials had resigned.
Note well that this was not to put down an insurrection. It was not to suppress actions of a State. It was to suppress actions of combinations of persons within a state, who assertedly opposed and obstructed the execution of certain laws, namely laws for the collection of the revenue.
The Proclamation of April 15, 1861 speaks not to a state insurrection, but to combinations of persons.
In any case, the Proclamation to combinations of persons came days after the attempted invasion of South Carolina.
In his proclamation of April 15, 1861, Lincoln affirmatively proclaimed that the law was being opposed by combinations of persons (not States).
The U.S. Supreme Court considered that proclamation and found Lincoln proclaimed an insurrection to exist on April 19, 1861.
Matthews v. McStea, 91 U.S. 7, 11 (1875) regarding the Proclamation of April 15, 1861:
Manifestly, this declaration was not a mere military order. It did not contemplate the treatment of the inhabitants of the States in which the unlawful combinations mentioned in the proclamation existed as public enemies. It announced a different mode of treatment, — the treatment due to friends. It is to be observed that the proclamation of April 15, 1861, was not a distinct recognition of an existing state of war. The President had power to recognize it, The Prize Cases, supra; but he did not 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 peace and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have assembled." The reference here was plainly to citizens of the insurrectionary States; and the purpose avowed appears to be inconsistent with their being regarded as public enemies, and consequently debarred from intercourse with the inhabitants of States not in insurrection.
If the said combinations were not public enemies on April 15, 1861, but were to be afforded treatment due to friends, what was the legal justification for a military invasion force on April 12, 1861?
As the measures were avowed to be with a view to the protection of the public peace and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, such as running a plantation and maintaining their slaves, how was April 12, 1861 about a war against slavery? It was an action to aid the non-existent marshals of the non-existent courts to collect the revenue.
There is Federal law that would directly apply, but it is derived from an Act of July 29, 1861. The Congress was called into session on July 4, 1861 and 25 days later had rewritten the law on the use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority.
§252. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authorityWhenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
Source Credit
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 15, §332; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, §1057(a)(2), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3440; renumbered §252, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, §1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)
DERIVATION
Act July 29, 1861, ch. 25, §1, 12 Stat. 281.
That is an interesting comment, and reminds me of a gentleman, Blarney Balderdash, back home that worked as a salesman at AAAA Aardvark Preowned Vehicles.
As I recall he would frequently say, out of the blue, to whoever he happened to be talking, “I would not lie to you.”
If speaking with an educator, he would say: “I wouldn't lie to a school teacher.”
To a minister: “I wouldn't lie to a preacher.”
To a farmer: “I wouldn't lie to a turnip green grower.”
As a young school boy I did not fully appreciate his compulsion to include the disavowal.
Later I began to understand.
Regardless of how often you lie about it, the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter was an act of war or rebellion, and recognized as such by all at the time.
That's why our FRiend DiogenesLamp tries to claim Lincoln's "war fleet" sent to Charleston Harbor was really, truly, the first act of war, to which Confederates could only respond in kind.
But history of, for example, the 1858 Paraguay expedition, shows us that sending a "war fleet" does not have to result in war, indeed can be a peacekeeping measure.
The reasons Jefferson Davis chose war at Fort Sumter should be obvious to anyone not blinded by pro-Confederate sympathies.
"The case of Pensacola then is reduced [to] the more palpable elements of a military problem and your measures may without disturbing views be directed to the capture of Fort Pickens and the defence of the harbor.
You will soon have I hope a force sufficient to occupy all the points necessary for that end.
As many additional troops as may be required can be promptly furnished."
[Jefferson Davis to Braxton Bragg, 3 Apr 1861]
woodpusher quoting Lincoln Feb. 1861: "Would the marching of an army into South Carolina, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion?
I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit.""
And so Lincoln did not march an army into South Carolina until after Confederates started (April 12, 1861) and formally declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861).
woodpusher: "Note well that this was not to put down an insurrection.
It was not to suppress actions of a State.
It was to suppress actions of combinations of persons within a state, who assertedly opposed and obstructed the execution of certain laws, namely laws for the collection of the revenue."
No, the immediate cause of Lincoln's proclamation was not "collection of the revenue", notwithstanding Confederates' obsession with that.
Rather, the immediate cause was Jefferson Davis' assault on Union troops in Fort Sumter, and the immediate purpose of Lincoln's 75,000 troops was to recover stolen Federal properties, not revenues.
woodpusher: "The U.S. Supreme Court considered that proclamation and found Lincoln proclaimed an insurrection to exist on April 19, 1861."
And yet, at the time it was well recognized on both sides that Civil War began when Jefferson Davis assaulted Union troops in Fort Sumter.
Nobody denied it then, there's no reason to deny it now.
The rest are necessary legalisms which don't change the fact that fighting had begun and would not stop until one side or the other submitted.
woodpusher: "If the said combinations were not public enemies on April 15, 1861, but were to be afforded treatment due to friends, what was the legal justification for a military invasion force on April 12, 1861?"
Yours and DiogenesLamp's repeated, endless lies about this notwithstanding, there was no "invasion force" on April 12.
There was a force deemed sufficient to resupply, and if necessary reinforce, Union troops in Union Fort Sumter.
All of which you folks well know, but just can't stop lying about.
woodpusher: "As the measures were avowed to be with a view to the protection of the public peace and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, such as running a plantation and maintaining their slaves, how was April 12, 1861 about a war against slavery?
It was an action to aid the non-existent marshals of the non-existent courts to collect the revenue."
April 12, 1861 was not about slavery, much less "revenues", it was about resupplying (or reinforcing) Union troops in Union Fort Sumter.
But slavery almost immediately became an issue when fugitives sought protection by Union troops, and Union commanders refused to return the escaped slaves to their Confederate "masters".
Further, from the beginning some Union leaders understood that defeating the Confederacy might require also destroying the slavery on which it was based.
woodpusher: "There is Federal law that would directly apply, but it is derived from an Act of July 29, 1861.
The Congress was called into session on July 4, 1861 and 25 days later had rewritten the law on the use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority."
President Jefferson's 1807 Insurrection Act, which replaced President Washington's 1792 Militia Acts, was thought adequate for events in early 1861.
But our Lost Cause defenders are still at it, if not in actual courts, then at least in this "court of public opinion".
Regardless of how often you lie about it, the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter was an act of war or rebellion, and recognized as such by all at the time.
I quoted the U.S. Supreme Court holding that you are full of crap.
In his proclamation of April 15, 1861, Lincoln affirmatively proclaimed that the law was being opposed by combinations of persons (not States).
The U.S. Supreme Court considered that proclamation and found Lincoln proclaimed a state of war to exist on April 19, 1861.
Matthews v. McStea, 91 U.S. 7, 11 (1875) regarding the Proclamation of April 15, 1861:
Manifestly, this declaration was not a mere military order. It did not contemplate the treatment of the inhabitants of the States in which the unlawful combinations mentioned in the proclamation existed as public enemies. It announced a different mode of treatment, — the treatment due to friends. It is to be observed that the proclamation of April 15, 1861, was not a distinct recognition of an existing state of war. The President had power to recognize it, The Prize Cases, supra; but he did not 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 peace and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have assembled." The reference here was plainly to citizens of the insurrectionary States; and the purpose avowed appears to be inconsistent with their being regarded as public enemies, and consequently debarred from intercourse with the inhabitants of States not in insurrection.
If the said combinations were not public enemies on April 15, 1861, but were to be afforded treatment due to friends, what was the legal justification for a military invasion force on April 12, 1861?
I did not lie. The U.S. Supreme Court explicitly stated that Lincoln could have recognized an existing state of war, but did not until April 19. Specifically, the combinations of persons to whom he spoke, were friends and not enemies, and the purpose of the proclamation was inconsistent with their being regarded as public enemies. Without enemies, there can be no state of war.
You must make up lies and bullcrap stories, because that is all you've got.
No, the immediate cause of Lincoln's proclamation was not "collection of the revenue"
The only given justification was that "the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed." You are supposed to be a history professor?
Rather, the immediate cause was Jefferson Davis' assault on Union troops in Fort Sumter, and the immediate purpose of Lincoln's 75,000 troops was to recover stolen Federal properties, not revenues.
Lincoln explicitly proclaimed his action was due to "the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed." The action was purportedly to assist the non-existent marshals of the non-existent courts to enforce those laws. The invasion forces dispatched to Fort Sumter in South Carolina, and Fort Pickens in Florida, were not sent in response to any attack upon the forts. They were not dispatched on April 12, 1861, they arrived at South Carolina and Florida on April 12, 1861. The call for 75,000 volunteers was on April 15, 1861, after the invasion force of April 12, 1861 and is irrelevant to the events of April 12, 1861.
Proclamation of April 15, 1861:
April 15, 1861By the President of the United States
A Proclamation.
Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law,
Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details, for this object, will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.
Proclamation of a Blockade, April 19, 1861:
By the President of the United States of America:A Proclamation.
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:
President Jefferson's 1807 Insurrection Act, which replaced President Washington's 1792 Militia Acts....
This is complete bullcrap. The Act of May 1, 1792 was repealed, in its entirety, in 1795. You are supposed to be a history professor?
woodpusher: "There is Federal law that would directly apply, but it is derived from an Act of July 29, 1861.The Congress was called into session on July 4, 1861 and 25 days later had rewritten the law on the use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority."
President Jefferson's 1807 Insurrection Act, which replaced President Washington's 1792 Militia Acts, was thought adequate for events in early 1861.
A willful, deliberate lie. "Thought adequate" by whom? So obviously inadequate that the law was amended within about three weeks of the Congress convening.
What provision of the Act of 1807 permitted the use of land or naval forces in response to combinations of persons considered not as enemies but as friends, and with no request from the State for assistance?
Article 4, Section 4 provided
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."
I quoted the 1807 law in my #12 and will quote it again, in full. It could not, and did not, exceed what the Constitution had permitted.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=480
ANNALS OF CONGRESSNINTH CONGRESS.
SESS. II. CH. 39, 1807.
Page 443
STATUTE II.
March 3, 1807.
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.
Lincoln expressly called forth the militia to cause the laws to be executed. He ordered combinations of persons to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes. That was days after the failed invasion of April 12, 1861.
In the case of non-invasion, but civil disturbance, the Constitution exerts pre-requisites, and it is those pre-requisites cited by the law of March 3, 1807.
On April 12, 1861, the military acted on secret orders, painted out the name of the flag ship, brought on British coal to make their smoke appear British, and flew British colors. That was not in conformance to the laws of war, much less the pre-requisites of the Constitution.
Domestic violence, of whatever dimension, is not invasion. Under Article 4, only invasion dispenses with the pre-requisites.
The official opinion of the Attorney General was solicited by the President of the United States and was rendered by then Attorney General Jeremiah S. Black on November 20, 1860. Take your anonymous Wikipedia and shove it. As a history professor, your knowledge does not appear to extend beyond anonymous Wikipedia blather.
Off'l Opinions of Attys Gen 9, pp. 516-526
Attorney General Jeremiah S. Black, Nov. 20, 1860
521-526
By the act of 1807, you may employ such parts of the land and naval forces as you may judge necessary, for the purpose of causing the laws to be duly executed, in all cases where it is lawful to [*522] use the militia for the same purpose. By the act of 1795, the militia may be called forth “whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed in any State, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals.” This imposes upon the President the sole responsibility of deciding whether the exigency has arisen which requires the use of military force, and in proportion to the magnitude of that responsibility will be his care not to overstep the limits of his legal and just authority.The laws referred to in the act of 1795 are manifestly those which are administered by the judges and executed by the ministerial officers of the courts for the punishment of crime against the United States, for the protection of rights claimed under the federal Constitution and laws, and for the enforcement of such obligations as come within the cognizance of the federal judiciary. To compel obedience to these laws the courts have authority to punish all who obstruct their regular administration, and the marshals and their deputies have the same powers as sheriffs and their deputies in the several States in executing the laws of the States. These are the ordinary means provided for the execution of the laws, and the whole spirit of our system is opposed to the employment of any other, except in cases of extreme necessity, arising out of great and unusual combinations against them. Their agency must continue to be used until their incapacity to cope with the power opposed to them shall be plainly demonstrated. It is only upon clear evidence to that effect that a military force can be called into the field. Even then, its operations must be purely defensive. It can suppress only such combinations as are found directly opposing the laws and obstructing the execution thereof. It can do no more than what might and ought to be done by a civil posse, if a civil posse could be raised large enough to meet the same opposition. On such occasions especially, the military power must be kept in strict subordination to [*523] the civil authority, since it is only in aid of the latter that the former can act at all.
But what if the feeling in any State against the United States should become so universal that the federal officers themselves (including judges, district attorneys, and marshals) would be reached by the same influences and resign their places? Of course the first step would be to appoint others in their stead, if others could be got to serve. But in such an event, it is more than probable that great difficulty would be found in filling the offices. We can easily conceive how it might become altogether impossible. We are, therefore, obliged to consider what can be done in case we have no courts to issue judicial process, and no ministerial officers to execute it In that event, troops would certainly be out of place, and their use wholly illegal. If they are sent to aid the courts and marshals, there must be courts and marshals to be aided. Without the exercise of those functions which belong exclusively to the civil service, the laws cannot be executed in any event, no matter what may be the physical strength which the Government has at its command. Under such circumstances, to send a military force into any State, with orders to act against the people, would be simply making war upon them.
The existing laws put and keep the Federal Government strictly on the defensive. You can use force only to repel an assault on the public property, and aid the courts in the performance of their duty. If the means given you to collect the revenue and execute the other laws be insufficient for that purpose, Congress may extend and make them more effectual to those ends.
If one of the States should declare her independence, your action cannot depend upon the rightfulness of the cause upon which such declaration is based. Whether the retirement of a State from the Union be the exercise of a right reserved in the Constitution, or a revolutionary movement, it is certain that you have not in either case the authority to recognize the independence or to absolve her [*524] from her federal obligations. Congress, or the other States in convention assembled, must take such measures as may be necessary and proper. In such an event, I see no course for you but to go straight onward in the path you have hitherto trodden—that is, execute the laws to the extent of the defensive means placed in your hands, and act generally upon the assumption that the present constitutional relations between the States and the Federal Government continue to exist, until a new order of things shall be established either by law or force.
Whether Congress has the constitutional right to make war against one or more States, and require the Executive of the Federal Government to carry it on by means of force to be drawn from the other States, is a question for Congress itself to consider. It must be admitted that no such power is expressly given, nor are there any words in the Constitution which imply it. Among the powers enumerated in article 1, section 8, is that “to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water.” This certainly means nothing more than the power to commence and carry on hostilities against the foreign enemies of the nation. Another clause in the same section gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the militia,” and to use them within the limits of the State. But this power is so restricted by the words which immediately follow, that it can be exercised only for one of the following purposes:
1. To execute the laws of the Union; that is, to aid the federal officers in the performance of their regular duties.2. To suppress insurrections against the State; but this is confined by article 4, section 4, to cases in which the State herself shall apply for assistance against her own people.
3. To repel the invasion of a State by enemies who come from abroad to assail her in her own territory.
All these provisions are made to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve the peace, and not to plunge them into civil war. Our forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, that military force would not only be useless, but pernicious, as a means of holding the States together.
If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would be ipso facto an expulsion of such State from the Union. Being treated as an alien and an enemy, she would be compelled to act accordingly. And if Congress shall break up the present Union, by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquillity which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their federal obligations? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?
The right of the General Government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional vigor, by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its officers, cannot be denied. But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war, to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State Government, or to prevent a threatened violation of the Constitution, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme. The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.
If this view of the subject be correct, as I think it is, then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the Gen- [*526] eral Government in the exercise of its proper constitutional functions.
I am, very respectfully, yours,
J. S. BLACK.
"The existing laws put and keep the Federal Government strictly on the defensive. You can use force only to repel an assault on the public property, and aid the courts in the performance of their duty." There was no assault on thepublic property. Instead, groceries were delivered twice a week pursuant to government contract. There was no pretext of assisting the non-existing courts, or the non-existent judges.
I am not the one pulling laws out of my ass that were repealed in 1795. If you read actual statutes, instead of Wikipedia nonsense, you would know the 1795 statute stated, "Section 10. And be it further enacted, That the act, intituled "An Act to provide for calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of the Union, supress insurrections, and repel invasions, passed the second day of May one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, shall be, and the same is hereby repealed. APPROVED, February 28, 1795."
When I quoted an actual statute in its entirety, do not bring me crap from Wikipedia about it. Do your research. An Act of 1807 did not amend an act that had been repealed in 1795. Having been repealed 67 years earlier, the Act of 1792 was uncitable as law on April 12, 1861.
The Act of 1795 stated, "And in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."
You are reminded of your original claim at your #11:
So, yes Virginia, when Jefferson Davis chose war at Fort Sumter, he chose a war against Confederates' "peculiar institution".
Lincoln chose war when he proclaimed a blockade on April 19, 1861. The U.S. Supreme Court said it. That proclamation acknowledged the Confederate States of America as a lawful belligerent power. That meant any military forces of the Confederacy who were captured would be entitled to prisoner of war status, and would not be subject to criminal prosecution for their acts of war. Jefferson Davis could not place the United States in a state of war. Only the United States could do that.
When President Eisenhower called forth the troops to cause the laws to be enforced in the state of Arkansas, there was no war. When Lincoln dispatched the troops from Gettysburg to New York City to put down the largest civil disturbance in American history, there was no war. If the objects of the exercise are not to be taken as prisoners of war, there is no war.
There’s not enough ice in the world for that level of historical burning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.