Replies

The Lincoln myth crowd relies on generalities to back up their claims such as “the states” vs the truth like “some states” and MOST importantly they can not separate the term seccesion from the term war. Case in point it does not matter why a state left nor if they mentioned slavery or not it was legal and indeed the Corwin Amendment the north wanted and passed to entice the states to return made it LEGAL forever. And...secession is secession; it is NOT war. War is when you fully know if you send a resupply ship to a fort in a city’s harbor it will be shot at. War is doing this while one of your echelons tells the Virginia peace commission that you are going to have the soldiers exit.

War is getting your first shot then calling for 75,000 troops to invade and kill Americans. That is war; not secession.

You're correct - secession is not necessarily war. But insurrection is and that's what the confederates stooped to committing. Too bad they didn't stick to secession (which was constitutionally vague at the time).

No it wasn’t legal, it was treason. There was precedent for this from a previous President.

The States severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown that in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty. The right to make treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers, were all functions of sovereign power. The States, then, for all these important purposes, were no longer sovereign. The allegiance of their citizens was transferred in the first instance to the government of the United States; they became American citizens, and owed obedience to the Constitution of the United States, and to laws made in conformity with the powers vested in Congress. This last position has not been, and cannot be, denied… it has been shown that in this sense the States are not sovereign, and that even if they were, and the national Constitution had been formed by compact, there would be no right in any one State to exonerate itself from the obligation.

So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, that it is necessary only to allude to them. The Union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifice of interest and opinions. Can those sacrifices be recalled? Can the States, who magnanimously surrendered their title to the territories of the West, recall the grant? Will the inhabitants of the inland States agree to pay the duties that may be imposed without their assent by those on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own benefit? Shall there be a free port in one State, and enormous duties in another? No one believes that any right exists in a single State to involve all the others in these and countless other evils, contrary to engagements solemnly made. Everyone must see that the other States, in self-defense, must oppose it at all hazards.

Your pride was aroused by the assertions that a submission to these laws was a state of vassalage, and that resistance to them was equal, in patriotic merit, to the opposition our fathers offered to the oppressive laws of Great Britain. You were told that this opposition might be peaceably-might be constitutionally made-that you might enjoy all the advantages of the Union and bear none of its burdens. Eloquent appeals to your passions, to your State pride, to your native courage, to your sense of real injury, were used to prepare you for the period when the mask which concealed the hideous features of DISUNION should be taken off.

But the dictates of a high duty oblige me solemnly to announce that you cannot succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subject-my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution, deceived you-they could not have been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object is disunion, but be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON. Are you really ready to incur its guilt?

President Jackson’s Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832

NKP_Vet: "The Lincoln myth crowd relies on generalities to back up their claims such as “the states” vs the truth like “some states”. "

No, we're not here to sell you a "Lincoln myth", only to correct the factual errors you insist on posting, over & over.
As for "the states" vs. "some states" -- you'll need to be more specific on that.

NKP_Vet: "and MOST importantly they can not separate the term seccesion from the term war

No I think that's your problem, not ours.

What you can't face is the fact that neither President Buchanan nor Lincoln took any military actions to stop secession or the Confederacy.
War only came because Jefferson Davis ordered Fort Sumter "reduced".
So war didn't start over secession but rather over Confederate aggression against the United States.
You keep telling us it was secession, but it wasn't.

NKP_Vet: "Case in point it does not matter why a state left nor if they mentioned slavery or not it was legal"

Yes, it matters first because you keep falsely claiming it wasn't about slavery, when all the documents we have say it was.
So right off the bat you start with a Big Lie, and we have to correct that.

It matters second because our Founders never supported or authorized an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure, meaning for any reason at all, or, indeed, for no particular reason.
That's not what our Founders said, ever.
So there's a second of your Big Lies we have to correct.

It matters third because the legality or illegality of secession was not the direct cause of Civil War, Fort Sumter was.
So even if we were to somehow concede your secession claims, you still have Civil War and Confederate refusals to accept any terms better than Unconditional Surrender.

NKP_Vet: and indeed the Corwin Amendment the north wanted and passed to entice the states to return made it LEGAL forever."

Lost Causers here grossly misrepresent Corwin with still more Big Lies.
In fact Corwin began as one of several Democrat efforts to find a "compromise" to keep more States from succeeding.
Mississippi Democrat Senator Jefferson Davis proposed a version in December 1860 to keep his own state from secession.
Corwin itself was supported by 100% of Democrats, opposed by a majority of Republicans, signed not by Lincoln but by President Buchanan.
So Corwin was just Democrats hoping to keep their fellow Southern Democrats from secession.
Corwin was the only such proposal Lincoln didn't oppose because, he said, it made no real changes in the status quo.

NKP_Vet: "And...secession is secession; it is NOT war.
War is when you fully know if you send a resupply ship to a fort in a city’s harbor it will be shot at.
War is doing this while one of your echelons tells the Virginia peace commission that you are going to have the soldiers exit."

No, you start war by seizing dozens of major Federal properties, from forts to ships, arsenals and mints, threatening Federal officials, demanding surrender of Union troops in Union Forts, then ordering a fort "reduced" when they refuse to surrender.

Lincoln's resupply mission is totally irrelevant to the fact that Jefferson Davis intended to start war at Fort Sumter and/or Fort Pickens regardless of what Lincoln did or didn't do.

As for your "Virginia peace commissioners", Lincoln himself offered them Fort Sumter, free & clear, no shots to be fired, in exchange for something of equal value to the Union.
Virginians turned down Lincoln's offer.

NKP_Vet: "War is getting your first shot then calling for 75,000 troops to invade and kill Americans.
That is war; not secession."

If Lincoln's April call-up of 75,000 Union troops was an act of war, then why was the Confederate call up of 100,000 Confederate troops a month earlier not also an act of war?
The fact is Confederates:

provoked war -- seized dozens of Federal properties.
Started war -- at Fort Sumter
Declared war -- May 6, 1861
Waged war -- more in Union states & territories than Confederate, the first 12 months.
Refused to accept any terms better than Unconditional Surrender.

So, bottom line: war is when you attack a country's troops in their own Fort after demanding their surrender, especially after you've been told they would not surrender without a fight.