Posted on 06/03/2025 2:20:50 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The victorious Civil War General Ulysses S. Grant was the Republicans’ unanimous choice for president in 1868. As in so many other presidential campaigns, the Democrats made race the centerpiece of their appeal to the American people. They nominated former New York governor Horatio Seymour and ran him on a platform calling for the “immediate restoration of all States to their rights in the Union under the Constitution,” amnesty for all former Confederates, and “the regulation of the elective franchise in the States by their citizens.”
That last point meant the right of white Southerners, chiefly former slaveholders and all Democrats, to restrict the freed slaves’ right to vote. For good measure, the Democratic platform called the Reconstruction Acts “unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void.” A Seymour campaign badge proclaimed, “Our Motto: This is a White Man’s Country; Let White Men Rule.” Grant won handily, with 214 electoral votes to Seymour’s 80.
The renowned general’s only problem after that was having to govern. During the Civil War, the U.S. government had printed paper money, backed by neither gold nor silver, to cover its rapidly rising war debts. Grant attempted to curb inflation and restore some fiscal responsibility to the economy by phasing out the greenbacks and conducting the government’s business in gold coins. He also maintained high tariffs to protect American workers and industries.
The new president also had to deal with self-serving advisors. Railroad magnate Jay Gould and stockbroker Jim Fisk had personally exhorted Grant to take this course, and were poised to take advantage. They bribed Assistant U.S. Treasurer Daniel Butterfield for inside information and proceeded to try to corner the gold market. In September 1869, Grant discovered their scheme and ordered his secretary of the treasury, George S. Boutwell, to sell $4 million in gold ($75 million today)...
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Wrong. Did you bother reading that? He thought he had no power to prevent secession. He was wrong in thinking because the constitution was silent on secession that meant a state did not have that right. That’s exactly backwards. Read the 10th Amendment.
Legal according to the laws of the State. The Constitution recognizes the State's authority to determine who is authorized to vote. None of those people the Army allowed to vote could legally vote under the laws of South Carolina.
Those elections were illegal.
This was the reconstruction government of South Carolina.
Which is required to follow Constitutional law.
They allowed the black men over age 21 to vote.
The *ARMY* "allowed" black men over the age of 21 to vote. The State Law did not. This ignoring of State laws was absolutely illegal, and there is no provision in the US Constitution to allow such a thing as this.
You against that?
Are you in favor of breaking the law?
You think the rebel government of South Carolina should have still been in charge?
I think the rights retained by the States under the US Constitution are still retained by the States, and not legally ignored because Military commanders think they don't have to abide by Constitutional law.
The Laws of South Carolina had not been changed. Allowing those freed slaves to vote was legally the same as allowing illegal aliens to vote. It is an effort to disenfranchise the actual citizens, and thereby allow the Federal government to do whatever it likes, even if it is against the will of the actual Citizens.
With few exceptions, Blacks weren't allowed to vote in Northern states. Why did anyone think it should be acceptable to allow them to vote anywhere until laws were changed to permit it?
Do you believe in law, or do you believe in dictatorship?
How about you do some actual work instead of lazily finding simple stuff that doesn't actually inform you correctly?
You find the *ORDERS TO THE SHIPS AND CREW*.
My recollection is there were orders issued by the Secretary of the Navy, and another set of orders issued by an Army general. Both of them say to use the entire *FORCE* at their disposal to place both men and material into the fort.
*FORCE* means cannon fire from those ships. It doesn't mean waving flags around on deck. It means *SHOOTING* at the Confederates.
Buchanan thought it required Congress to act first to repress the rebellion. He DID NOT BELIEVE SECESSION WAS CONSTITUTIONAL as you stated in your earlier posts. But overall, Buchanan was a jerk and it didn’t matter one way or another what he thought.
BTW, Lincoln had congressional approval for his military actions. And yes, I was shouting at you. ;~)
Yes Buchanan thought that as president, he could not start a war. That was correct. As I initially said, he did not have the power to prevent secession.
BTW, Lincoln DID NOT HAVE congressional approval for his military actions. Yes, I was yelling back.
As close as I could find… it supports my position, not your myths.
It’s amazing how much you know that just is not true.
On April 15, 1861, just three days after the attack on Fort Sumter, President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation calling forth the state militias, to the sum of 75,000 troops, in order to suppress the rebellion. He appealed “to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union.” As days passed, senators noted the tremendous response to the president’s call for troops. “The response of the loyal states to the call of Lincoln was perhaps the most remarkable uprising of a great people in the history of mankind,” wrote Senator John Sherman of Ohio. “Within a few days the road to Washington was opened, but the men who answered the call were not soldiers, but citizens.”
Lincoln’s proclamation also summoned Congress to return for an extraordinary session beginning on July 4, “to consider, and determine, such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety, and interest, may seem to demand.” From April to July of 1861, in preparation for the rare summertime session, senators were engaged in a variety of war-related activities—rallying support, building the military, crafting essential legislation, and handling constituent requests.
,
Source: US Senate
Next myth.
Lincoln initiated military action when he sent a heavily armed fleet to invade South Carolina’s sovereign territory with the aim of inaugurating war. Do show us the Congressional approval for that.
Its amazing how much you think you know that is just myth and falsehood.
Sovereign territory?.. I suppose that’s your problem. The was nothing sovereign about it. It was United States territory. Unilateral secession is unconstitutional. Even a pro slavery Dough Face like Buchanan knew that.
Jefferson Davis initiated military action when he ordered Beauregard to reduce Fort Sumpter with the aim of inaugurating war.
Sovereign territory. It belongs to South Carolina which - like every other state - is sovereign. Unilateral secession is the right of each state. They never delegated the power to the federal government to prevent it. The 10th makes it clear that any power not delegated to the federal government is reserved by the states. Multiple states expressly reserved the right to unilateral secession at the time they ratified the Constitution. Nobody claimed those reservations were in any way incompatible with the Constitution. Had anybody claimed it was, no state would have ratified the Constitution.
Lincoln initiated military action when he sent a fleet of warships to invade South Carolina's sovereign territory.
"May 1st, 1861. Washington Capt. G.V. Fox:
My Dear Sir, I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to you.......I most cheerfully and truthfully declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select. You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.
His intention was to start a war as both of his personal secretaries confirm. He congratulated his naval commander for having done exactly that.
The Supreme Court says you are wrong. If you want to leave the Union, you do it the same way you got into the Union… with the agreement of the other states.
Funny thing is, in 1861, if the states that thought secession was a good idea had instead gone through congress and asked for a vote, I think they would have won. But your Confederate hero’s were too damn stupid and bull headed to go that route. They thought they could kick everyone’s ass and they could do what they wanted. They found out differently.
You mean the 1866 Supreme Court? The one on which Lincoln appointed 5 justices which decided that 5-4 with each of his appointees ruling states did not have the right to unilaterally secede? The Supreme Court on which Chief Justice Salmon P Chase ruled that the actions of the Treasury secretary were completely correct.....one Salmon P Chase. That Supreme Court?
No state required the permission of any other to ratify the constitution. They each did so unilaterally. They are each sovereign. The states were never required to ask for a permission slip from anyone else to exercise their rights. A sovereign derives its authority from no other source.
There has been 160 years of constant propaganda "supporting" the official narrative. You won't get the truth out of reading what other people have been brainwashed to believe.
I notice you still haven't found the actual orders issued to the Ships and Crews.
You still don't know the truth.
I believe one set of orders was issued by General Winfield Scott.
Here is a letter from the Secretary of the Navy explaining to Lincoln they would have to use *FORCE* to do what he wants.
"From Gideon Welles to Abraham Lincoln, March 15, 1861Navy Department
15" March 1861
Sir:
In answer to your enquiry of this date, I take it for granted that Fort Sumter cannot be provisioned except by force, and assuming that it is possible to be done by force, is it wise to make the attempt?The question has two aspects, one military, the other political. The military gentlemen who have been consulted, as well as the officers at the Fort, represent that it would be unwise to attempt to succor the garrison under existing circumstances, and I am not disposed to controvert their opinions.
But a plan has been submitted by a gentleman of undoubted courage and intelligence -- not of the army or navy -- to run in supplies by steam tugs, to be chartered in New York It is admitted to be a hazardous scheme which, if successful, is likely to be attended with some loss of life and the total destruction of the boats. The force which would constitute the expedition, if undertaken, as well as the officer in command would not, if I rightly understand the proposition, be of the army or navy. It is proposed to aid and carry out the enterprise by an armed ship at the mouth of the harbor and beyond the range of the shore batteries, which is to drive in the armed boats of the enemy beyond Fort Sumter. But, suppose these armed boats of the enemy refuse to go into the inner harbor, as I think they will refuse, and shall station themselves between Sumter and the ship for the express purpose of intercepting your boats -- how can you prevent them from taking that station and capturing the tugs? There can be but one way, and that is by opening a fire upon them from Sumter, or the ship, and perhaps both. If this is done, will it not be claimed that aggressive war has been commenced by us upon the state and its citizens in their own harbor? It may be possible to provision Fort Sumter by the volunteer expedition, aided by the guns of Sumter and the ship -- the military gentlemen admit its possibility, but they question the wisdom of the enterprise in its military aspect and I would not impeach their conclusion.In a political view, I entertain doubts of the wisdom of the measure, when the condition of the public mind in different sections of the country and the peculiar exigency of affairs are considered. Notwithstanding the hostile attitude of South Carolina and her long and expensive preparations, there is a prevailing belief that there will be no actual collision. An impression has gone abroad that Sumter is to be evacuated and the shock caused by that announcement has done its work. The The public mind is becoming tranquilized under it and will become fully reconciled to it when the causes which have led to that necessity shall have been made public and are rightly understood. They are attributable to no act of those who now administer the government. By sending or attempting to send provisions into Sumter, will not war be precipitated? It may be impossible to escape it under any course of policy that may be pursued, but I am not prepared to advise a course that would provoke hostilities. It does not appear to me that the dignity, strength or character of the government will be promoted by an attempt to provision Sumter in the manner proposed, even should it succeed, while a failure would be attended with untold disaster.
I do not therefore, under all the circumstances, think it wise to attempt to provision Fort Sumter.
I am, very respectfully,
Gideon Welles
This is so backwards it makes my teeth hurt.
Each state VOTED to become a member of the Union. They RATIFIED the US Constitution through the Democratic process.
They joined the Union voluntarily, which means they should be able to leave voluntarily.
Rhode Island refused to join the Union for years, and would have continued doing so but for the fact Congress threatened them with embargoes of trade, and other such arm twisting tactics.
New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island all included in their ratifications the statement that they had the right to take back their powers given up to the Federal government if they ever perceived the Federal government as not respecting their rights.
Davis did not order Beauregard to resist the fleet of warships, his orders directed Beauregard to reduce Fort Sumter. An act he knew would lead to war with the United States.
US Constitution
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Lincoln sent a fleet of heavily armed warships to invade South Carolina's territory, an act he knew would lead to war with the Confederate States.
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.