What? No question on the legitimacy of the confederacy's unelected president?
It's right there in his first inaugural speech. Pay the tariff and we won't invade.
I've read Lincoln's first inaugural, and I highly recommend you do the same. It's not as good as his second inaugural IMHO, but it is very clear. "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors." And he was true to his word. Not an single aggressive action was taken prior to the confederacy's bombardment of Sumter. When we look at the part you are apparently thinking of:
"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality, shall be so great and so universal, as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable with all, that I deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed, unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper; and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles, and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections." Lincoln is clear there as well. Sumter is the property of the federal government, and the federal government will retain ownership. The federal government will continue to provide the services it has always done - collect revenue, deliver the mail, etc. No hostile actions will be taken, in the hope that cooler heads would prevail. Unfortunately there were no cooler heads in the South.
Lincoln never gave a damn about the rule of law. He suspended habeas corpus, threw opposition figures in jail without trial, invaded sovereign states which had not seceded and overthrew their governments.
More hogwash. Lincoln's actions on habeas corpus may or may not have been Constitutional, the Supreme Court never ruled on it. But Davis threw opposition figures in jail, didn't establish a Supreme Court, implemented protective tariffs and, if stories be true, promised the European powers he would end slavery if they recognized the confederacy. All in violation of his own constitution. Yet nary a complaint about that from the Southern hypocrisy crowd.
He was elected by a constitutional convention. According to you that's the will of the people.
I've read Lincoln's first inaugural, and I highly recommend you do the same.
There it is. He threatened invasion if the tax/tribute wasn't paid. Like I said.
Not an single aggressive action was taken prior to the confederacy's bombardment of Sumter.
It doesn't matter what order things happenen in. Lincoln had no right to collect taxes from South Carolina after South Carolina became an independent Nation.
More hogwash. Lincoln's actions on habeas corpus may or may not have been Constitutional, the Supreme Court never ruled on it. But Davis threw opposition figures in jail, didn't establish a Supreme Court, implemented protective tariffs and, if stories be true, promised the European powers he would end slavery if they recognized the confederacy. All in violation of his own constitution. Yet nary a complaint about that from the Southern hypocrisy crowd.
Don't you ever get tired of defending ancient war propaganda? Davis was faced with invasion by a foreign power. And unlike Lincoln, enjoyed the support of most of his population for most of his actions.
And you can hardly compare Lincoln's jailing of 30,000 people whose only crime was to speak or write against the war with anything Jefferson Davis did.
It's a crying shame to see that one could possess an MBA and still be unable to read and comprehend court opinions. The US Supreme court stated, That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide. Until the legislative will be expressed, this court can only see its duty, and must obey the laws. 'If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so.
Again by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in the in-chambers decision of ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (1861),
Chief Justice Marshall, ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75, 101 (1807)With such provisions in the Constitution, expressed in language too clear to be misunderstood by any one, I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President, in any emergency or in any state of things, can authorize the suspension of the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen, except in aid of the judicial power. He certainly does not faithfully execute the laws if he takes upon himself legislative power by suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and the judicial power also, by arresting and imprisoning a person without due process of law. Nor can any argument be drawn from the nature of sovereignty, or the necessity of government, for self-defence in times of tumult and danger. The Government of the United States is one of delegated and limited powers. It derives its existence and authority altogether from the Constitution, and neither of its branches, Executive, Legislative, or Judicial can exercise any of the powers of Government beyond those specified and granted.
And again, by Justice David Davis in ex parte Milligan, 71 Wall. 2, 115, 124 (1866), yet another habeas corpus case: ". . . The proposition is this: that in a time of war the commander of an armed force (if in his opinion the exigencies of the country demand it, and of which he is to judge), has the power, within the lines of his military district, to suspend all civil rights and their remedies, and subject citizens as well as soldiers to the rule of his will; and in the exercise of his lawful authority cannot be restrained, except by his superior officer or the President of the United States. . . . The statement of this proposition shows its importance; for, if true, republican government is a failure, and there is an end of liberty regulated by law. Martial law, established on such a basis, destroys every guarantee of the Constitution, and effectually renders the 'military independent of and superior to the civil power'-the attempt to do which by the King of Great Britain was deemed by our fathers such an offence, that they assigned it to the world as one of the causes which impelled them to declare their independence." "[I]t was of the highest importance that the lawfulness of the suspension should be fully established. It was under these circumstances, which were such as to arrest the attention of the country, that this law was passed. The President was authorized by it to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus."
The Supreme Court happens to disagree with you.