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 ...
Nonsense. Any other negotiations depended upon the Lincoln adminsitration acknowledging the legitimacy of the Davis regime and the success of the southern rebellion. Your suggestion that somehow the fate of Sumter and other federal property could have been negotiated without first settling that fact is absurd.
These so-called "instructions" you keep referring to didn't stop Davis from sending them with bank papers to carry out payment if necessary.
If true then wouldn't that be yet another example of the contempt that Davis had for the confederate constitution since only the congress could appropriate the funds necessary for paying such claims?
How many countries must recognize a state/nation for it to be officially a "nation"?
Where is Lincoln delegated the power to be the judge of that?
There might have been, had a solution agreeable to both sides been reached, but that wasn't part of the Davis regime's agenda. It was 'take it or leave it' and no dicussions allowed.
Good grief, the seceded states and Confedederacy attempted 5 times (IIRC) to negotiate. Congress certainly didn't declare war on SC et al when the forts were reclaimed. Resolving the issue peacefully was not in Lincoln's agenda.
Given that then again I ask, what was there for the Lincoln administration to discuss? If they weren't willing to give in on the first point then there was never any hope on the second.
In Lincoln's first inaugural speech he made it plain that 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', that 'I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States.' Yet he next states that '[w]here hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and 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.'
Come on, either he has a constitutional obligation or he doesn't. He simply wanted the monies.
They didn't try once. They were not interested in negotiating, they were there to get recognition of the legitimacy of their rebellion. Reconcilliation wasn't an option, so the Lincoln administration had to either accept their terms without compromise or else walk away. Lincoln chose not to have terms dictated to him.
Come on, either he has a constitutional obligation or he doesn't. He simply wanted the monies.
Unlike the Davis regime, Lincoln was interested in a peaceful solution to the situation.
Sure they can. All it takes is repealing the statute just like they passed it in the first place. Like it or not, non-seq, laws may be repealed - even those that claim to be unrepealable.
And both said that first and foremost the purpose of the expedition was the peaceful landing of supplies, and that force was to be used only if the landing was opposed.
Wrong. One actively said that force WILL be used right then and there if the landing is opposed, the other passively said that force WILL NOT be used if the landing is permitted while giving not the slightest indication of when, where, how or if force would be used if entry was denied. YOU keep ignoring that fact in your attempt to twist the meaning into something it wasn't.
So can constitutions.
[The] fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No 78, "The Judiciary Department"
Utter nonsense. Once title was passed to the federal government then South Carolina had no claim to it and no control over it. The idea that they could suddenly take it back without recourse is ridiculous. Constitutionally only Congress could exercise authority over land obtained with consent of legislature for forts, etc. Once South Carolina gave it up only Congress could give it back.
Wrong.
Sorry, you're wrong. Both identified peaceful resupply and the focus for the expedition with force to be used only if the resupply was opposed.
Where is Lincoln delegated the power to be the judge of that?
In the Militia Act.
Walt
Not utter nonsense but rather simple fact. Statutes may be repealed by the body that passed them to begin with. What don't you understand about that?
Once title was passed to the federal government then South Carolina had no claim to it and no control over it.
Wrong. The SC cession of the Fort Sumter land came in 1827 under the enabling 1794 legislation, which made transfers contingent upon the conditions of the states. SC continued to control the cession as late as 1835 when its legislature, again by statute, overruled the private claim placed upon the same land by an investor.
Since both were acts of statute, and since statutes may be repealed at any time by the body that made them, SC had every power to repeal its earlier cessions in 1861.
Constitutionally only Congress could exercise authority over land obtained with consent of legislature for forts, etc.
No. Constitutionally, Congress could only exercise exclusive "Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts..."
Fort Sumter's land was not purchased, but rather ceded under the 1794 enabling legislation.
Sorry, you're wrong.
No ammount of repetition will ever make that so, non-seq. The fact remains that one was active and conditional while the other was passive and vague. One stated that they WILL attack right then and there upon denial of entry and the other stated that they WILL NOT attack upon being granted entry while offering NO specifics of the time, nature, or means of attack if such entry was denied. No ammount of fibbing, equivocation, or willful avoidance of the issue will ever change those facts.
The Constitution authorizes Congress "To exercise exclusive Legislation...[and] Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" (emphasis added)
It does NOT authorize Congress to exercise similar authority over forts that are ceded or lent to the federal government. The founding fathers recognized this key distinction and, accordingly, passed a 1794 enabling act that would allow the states to conditionally cede forts for the purpose of garrisoning them with federal troops. South Carolina did this in 1805 with three existing forts in Charleston. In 1827 they used the same process, and not the federal purchasing process, to cede the land for Fort Sumter.
Had they said to Congress "we will sell you the land on which Fort Sumter will be built" and Congress responded by providing payments, then yes - that clause of the constitution would govern Congress' jurisdiction. But that is not what happened, hence the 1794 Act governs it.
The feds had clear title to Fort Sumter; they refused to build the fort until that was conveyed.
"In the specific case of Fort Sumter, in 1827, the Secretary of War, a man named John C. Calhoun (!) had approved the construction of a new fort in the harbor. The first appropriations were made by Congress in 1828 and construction started on the harbor shoal. In November, 1834, after the Untied States had expended roughly $200,000, a person named Major William Laval, Esq., claimed title to the land which included the under-construction fort.
A South Carolina statute passed in 1791 established a method by which the state disposed of its vacant lands (we tend to forget that much of the territory of the states was empty in the Nineteenth Century: in the original thirteen states, this land was held by the states; in the remaining part of the country, it was held by the Federal government, except in Texas, where the public lands were retained by the state when it was admitted). Laval used the law to claim title to the land – but he described it in a vague manner and given the lack of decent maps of any of the country, his vagueness hid the exact location of the tract he claimed.
When Laval appeared on the scene, the Corps of Engineers stopped work and asked for instructions. It appeared that Laval had filed a proper claim for the land – except that the “land” was below low tide and therefore exempt from purchase.
Well South Carolina was aghast! They did not want to lose the fort to protect themselves, nor the payrolls that would come with the completed fort.
The result was a state law:
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836
The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.
Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
T. W. GLOVER, C. H. R.
IN SENATE, December 21st, 1836
Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
JACOB WARLY, C. S.
Poor Maj. Laval lost his scheme to blackmail the United States!
For those wishing to further pursue the ownership of Fort Sumter, et. al, most college and university libraries will have American State Papers: Documents Legislative and Executive of the Congress of the United States, Military Affairs, vol. 5, Twenty-third Congress, Second Session, No. 591, “The Construction of Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina; pp. 463-472.
The War Department became concerned in the 1890s that they might not have clear title to all of their various installations, so they had a civilian attorney in the Judge Advocate General's office research the chain of title. Fortunately for us, not only were the various National Cemeteries still War Department properties, but so were most of the forts used in the early Republic, the Civil War and the Indian Wars.
The result was James B. McCrellis, Military Reservations, National Military Parks, and National Cemeteries. Title and Jurisdiction, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1898. If you can not locate a hard copy, CIS has copied McCrellis on microfiche: U.S. Executive Branch Documents, 1789-1909: War Department, W 1002.8."
--From the moderated ACW newsgroup
In fact, Fort Sumter was a pork barrell project for the South Carolinians.
Walt
The authority of constitutions over governments, and of the sovereignty of the people over constitutions, are truths which are at all times necessary to be kept in mind. (James Madison)
The people of the whole United States are the sovereigns of the whole United States.
Walt
Wrong. These so-called "instructions" you keep referring to didn't stop Davis from sending them with bank papers to carry out payment if necessary.
There wasn't enough cash in the south to nearly pay for all the federal property in the south. And when you consider that the U.S. took on the debts of Texas, and spent $100,000,000 to remove and subdue the hostile indian tribes just in Florida, and that several of the so-called states were bought with federal money, the idea that the so-called CSA was going to make just restitution is absurd.
Southerners were in debt to northern creditors to something like the tune of $200,000,000. And their wealth was in land and slaves. They didn't have much liquid capital.
No. What the "commissioners" were trying to do was prove, by their offer to negotiate, that they were honorable "gentlemen." But they were no more honorable than a purse snatcher. And no less willing to use force.
Walt
Considering that the south was the only economically competitive and internationally productive region of the country, that is highly unlikely.
And when you consider that the U.S. took on the debts of Texas, and spent $100,000,000 to remove and subdue the hostile indian tribes just in Florida, and that several of the so-called states were bought with federal money, the idea that the so-called CSA was going to make just restitution is absurd.
And exactly why should the CSA make restitution for the Louisiana purchase? Southern states paid for that purchase too. And Indian wars? They had those all over the country, not just the south.
Southerners were in debt to northern creditors to something like the tune of $200,000,000.
Source please.
And their wealth was in land and slaves.
Actually a large portion of it came from agricultural output. Land etc. were simply the business investments to achieve that output.
No more than any other fort. It was placed there as part of the large system of coastal defenses stretching from Massachussetts to Florida and beyond. In the 1820's and 30's Congress appropriated funds for the building of forts all up the coast including at least one for most major cities. New York, Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington - they all got forts in this era. So did coastal New Jersey and Delaware even though they weren't strategic sights.
In fact, some northern ports got more than one fort built for them. South Carolina, however, was more industrious than that and actually had built three of them on their own for Charleston by around 1790. Sumter, the fourth and final fort, simply completed and modernized the harbor defenses.
If that were true, the whole people of the US would have ratified the Constitution as a whole, which they did not.
But I forget. You probably subscribe to that nonsense Lincoln put forth about the Union existing first, before the states. My deepest sympathies.
The feds had clear title. They wouldn't agree to build the fort without clear title.
Walt
If that were true, the whole people of the US would have ratified the Constitution as a whole, which they did not.
No dreamer would suggest that.
"They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act savely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several states--and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their states. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the state governments."
"From these conventions, the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people. . . .
*****The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties.*****" [17 U.S. 316, 402-404]
There it is, plain in black and white. The Constitution was of a complete obligation on the states and it bound them to the Union. A state on its own does not have the authority to release itself from any obligations, much less a "complete obligation."
Marshall further ruled, "The government of the Union, then, is, emphatically and truly, a government of the people. In form, and in substance, it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit." [17 U.S. 316, 404-405]
And, "If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this--that the government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action." [17 U.S. 316, 405] The makeup of the Union, without doubt, is within the sphere of action of the Federal Government. We can see this from the fact that Congress admits new states into the Union, and the Federal law admitting those new states is signed by the President.
In Gibbons v. Ogden, the Court ruled, "When these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their Congress of Ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, the whole character in which the States appear, underwent a change." [22 U.S. 1, 187]
And in Cohens v. Virginia the Court ruled, "That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. . .. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and to many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects it is competent. The people have declared, that in the exercise of all the powers given for these objects, it is supreme. . . . The constitution and laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States, are absolutely void. These States are constituent parts of the United States. They are members of one great empire." [19 U.S. 264, 413-414]
In that same ruling, the Court said that the people who made the Constitution can unmake it, but this particular supreme power "resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it." [19 U.S. 264, 389]
What could be clearer? There it is, a ruling of the Supreme Court and thus the law of the land. Unilateral secession is unconstitutional because "The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation." This was settled case law well prior to the secession of 1860 and 1861."
-- From the moderated ACW newsgroup
Walt
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.