Posted on 11/06/2003 7:31:54 PM PST by republicanwizard
Astounding Triumph of Republicanism.
THE NORTH RISING IN INDIGNATION AT THE MENACES OF THE SOUTH
Abraham Lincoln Probably Elected President by a Majority of the Entire Popular Vote
Forty Thousand Majority for the Republican Ticket in New-York
One Hundred Thousand Majority in Pennsylvania
Seventy Thousand Majority in Massachusetts
Corresponding Gains in the Western and North-Western States
Preponderance of John Bell and Conservatism at the South
Results of the Contest upon Congressional and Local Tickets
The canvass for the Presidency of the United States terminated last evening, in all the States of the Union, under the revised regulation of Congress, passed in 1845, and the result, by the vote of New-York, is placed beyond question at once. It elects ABRAHAM LINCOLN of Illinois, President, and HANNIBAL HAMLIN of Maine, Vice-President of the United States, for four years, from the 4th March next, directly by the People.
The election, so far as the City and State of New-York are concerned, will probably stand, hereafter as one of the most remarkable in the political contests of the country; marked, as it is, by far the heaviest popular vote ever cast in the City, and by the sweeping, and almost uniform, Republican majorities in the country.
RELATED HEADLINES
ELECTION DAY IN THE CITY: All Quiet and Orderly At the Polls: Progress of the Voting in the Several Wards: The City After Nightfall: How the News Was Received: Unbounded Enthusiasm of the Republicans and Bell-Everett Headquarters: The Times Office Beseiged: Midnight Display of Wide-Awakes: Bonfires and Illuminations
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The 1836 state law transferring ownership did not.
Impossible. The resupply never happened because it was preempted.
A fact that became clear to the ships once they approached Sumter in daylight.
False.
Nonsense. In both cases the instructions were clear. The primary purpose was a peaceful landing of supplies only, with no force to be used and no men or munitions to be landed unless the resupply was opposed.
Indeed. But all laws passed by Congress with respect to the territories were not necessarily constitutional. Case in point, the Missouri Compromise, which partitioned the territories into slave and non-slave portions, was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The following wasn't involved in that decision, but going back to the language of the treaty by which we obtained the Louisiana Purchase (the properties partitioned by the Missouri Compromise), one finds that the residents of the Louisiana Territory had the right to hold their property (which under the laws of the times included slaves) anywhere in the Territory. Or words to that effect. Of course, treaties are considered the law of the land because they are approved by the Senate, a vestige of state sovereignty where every state has an equal vote in deciding the course of the nation.
Which would mean that you didn't bother to read the instructions. There was no negotiation possible involving the primary isntructions. The Lincoln administration would recognize the legitimacy of the Davis regime and no other outcome was acceptable. Failing that then the second part was just window dressing meant to make the confederate demands look reasonable.
What evidence do you have of that?
In his inaugural address Lincoln made it clear his hope for a peaceful solution. He had taken no hostile actions, as he promised in his address. He also tried to hold on to federal property, as promised in his address. Violence could have been avoided had Davis want to avoid it. But instead Davis forced the issue.
Lincoln did not meet with any commissioner sent by any state.
To what end? Like I said there was nothing to discuss and no reason to believe that the Davis regime, having seized federal property at the point of a gun, had any interest if paying fair compensation for it. Their tactic on the first instructions were 'take it or leave it' so why should we believe that their position on the second instructions would be any different?
If you know some figures on returned slaves over time, I'd be interested. Thanks.
I do see the following in The Daily Mississipian newspaper of January 16, 1861:
Washington, Jan. 12. Hon. Wm H. Seward, of New York, addressed the Senate to-day, on the President's message. He said Congress ought, if it can, redress any real grievances of the offended States, and then supply the President with all the means necessary to maintain the Union. He argued that the laws contravening the constitution, in regard to the escape of slaves, ought to be repealed. He was willing to vote for an amendment to the constitution, that Congress should never have the power to abolish or interfere with slavery within the States.He said that he was ready to vote for any properly guaranteed laws to prevent the invasions of the States by citizens of other States. (I think here he was talking about one of the grievances of the Southern states, that people from the North were coming down and invading farms, etc., to take away slaves. I've seen reference to this in some of the secession ordinances. Also, Southerners had been killed in the North trying to get their slaves back, but I don't know how frequent that sort of thing was. Rare probably.)
The law transfering sumter was effectively voided by the secession ordinance.
A fact that became clear to the ships once they approached Sumter in daylight.
Wrong. The ships saw the bombardment happening in the distance and even debated whether or not to reinforce the fort during it. It was decided that without the Powhatan the endeavor would be too risky and could incur large casualties.
Nonsense. In both cases the instructions were clear.
No it wasn't. One used active and consequential language. The other used passive and intentionally vague language. There is no way around that simple fact.
True, but that is not the only thing that didn't show. Three tugs had also been obtained by Gustavus Fox -- they were to run supplies in to the fort while the warships were blasting the way in. One of the tugs took refuge in Wilmington, NC from the heavy storm that strung the fleet out during the passage south. Another overshot Charleston and ended up in Savannah. The third never left New York because of some concerns of the owner.
Additionally, I see where the Star of the West scrapped her bottom on the Charleston bar several times as she fled from the harbor in early January. I wonder what would have happened if she had gotten stuck on the bar.
There would have been no 'blasting the way in' had the Davis regime merely held their fire. No war, either, but Davis could countenance that.
Considering that Lincoln didn't even try there is no way of knowing that for certain.
In his inaugural address Lincoln made it clear his hope for a peaceful solution.
Meaningless lip service. IIRC, Saddam made a speech on Iraqi TV a few days before the war hoping for a peaceful solution as well. In Lincoln's case, the real message of his speech was "back down or else there will be war." That message was universally known among the southerners in the days following his speech. If you doubt me just look what they said in Congress in response to it. Even the moderates from the border states like Virginia (who Lincoln also refused to meet with) saw it as a threat for war.
He had taken no hostile actions
His hostile act, aside from all the thinly guised threats of war, was dispatching the fleet. He had been plotting that hostile act since Anderson garrisoned Sumter on December 26th.
Violence could have been avoided had Davis want to avoid it.
...which makes about as much sense as "violence could be avoided if you simply open your door and let me march in with my shotgun in hand."
To what end?
In Virginia's case, to the end of preventing it from seceding. In the case of the rest of the south, to the end of devising an agreeable means of permitting peaceful separation, altering the nature of union, or offering a compromise to counter their departure from the union.
no reason to believe that the Davis regime, having seized federal property at the point of a gun, had any interest if paying fair compensation for it.
Wrong. All three of the other forts that SC had "seized" were bought and paid for by SC long before the federal government even had a regular army. Even then, as a means of facilitating their peaceful transfer, SC offered to pay for them. They sent commissioners authorized to deliver payment in December 1860. The rest of the CSA followed suit. In January 1861 Sen. Slidell of Louisiana even went to the Senate floor to pledge payment for any of the southern forts. Davis' commissioners to Lincoln even held papers in hand permitting them to transfer payment for facilities. Absolutely no reason exists as to why they would not have paid as repeatedly offered. The only impediment to it was the fact that Lincoln, already hell bent on war, refused to meet with anyone.
Their tactic on the first instructions were 'take it or leave it'
No it wasn't. A major purpose of the meeting was to settle on a fair price itself! They were willing to allow Lincoln offer whatever fair price he saw and negotiate from there, but he refused to meet.
Not legally. There was nothing in the original transfer that allowed for that.
No it wasn't.
Yes it was.
You probably would have seen the crew frantically dumping all the munitions they had hidden below deck in order to float her while the confederate guns shot the masts to splinters.
Yes legally. The original transfer, which was a statute, was REPEALED by the act of secession. If you repeal a law its contents no longer matter - even if those contents say "you can't repeal me." Ask Phil Gramm and Warren Rudman if you doubt that.
Yes it was.
No. It wasn't. I have already demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the language in the two messages differed significantly. To deny that is to fib.
Again, if you would read the instructions then there is no doubt as to their purpose. Their mandate was 'the purpose of negotiating friendly relations between that government and the Confederate States of America'. Nothing there indicates that any possible outcome other than recognition of the legitimacy of the southern rebellion was possible. Your claim at negotiation involved no negotiations at all.
Meaningless lip service.
Along the same lines as your claim that the southerners would fairly compensate for property already seized, a claim not included in the mandate approved by the confederate congress BTW.
All three of the other forts that SC had "seized" were bought and paid for by SC long before the federal government even had a regular army.
Absolute nonsense and, since the Davis regime also held mints and armories and forts and facilities throughout the south with no evidence that they ever meant to pay for them, irrelevant besides.
Show me the charges against them as such, the trial in which those charges were weighed, and the conviction declaring their guilt. Otherwise you have no demonstration of your alleged crime.
I don't have to do that. The attorney general called them traitors. The Supreme Court called secessionists generally traitors.
They weren't hanged out of the magnaminity of the victors and for no other reason.
Do you think anyone worth convincing would be convinced by your statement? Can you possibly believe it yourself?
Walt
The original transfer was a legal document in which the state of South Carolina ceded all ownership of the property to the United States without condition other than those providing for the serving of civil or legal warrants on people in the fort. The U.S. government did nothing to violate these provisions so the South Carolina government had no legal basis for reclaiming the fort. They had no claim to property that they did not own.
No. It wasn't.
Yes it was. You have demonstrated nothing except that both letters gave, as the primary purpose of the expedition, the peaceful landing of supplies only and that force was to be used on if such a landing was opposed.
Considering the wretched marksmanship shown by confederate artillerists on that occasion, as well as the shelling of the Rhoda Shannon and the fort itself, the crew may well have died of old age before a single mast was hit.
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.