Posted on 01/13/2004 9:01:35 AM PST by Aurelius
Dust jackets for most books about the American Civil War depict generals, politicians, battle scenes, cavalry charges, cannons[sic] firing, photographs or fields of dead soldiers, or perhaps a battle between ironclads. In contrast our book {[url=http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2XGHOEK4JT&isbn=0842029613&itm=7]Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War Mark Thornton, Steven E. Woodworth (Editor), Robert B. Ekelund[/url]features a painting by Edgar Degas entitled the "Cotton Exchange" which depicts several calm businessmen and clerks, some of them Degas’s relatives, going about the business of buying and selling cotton at the New Orleans Cotton Exchange. The focus of this book is thus on the economic rationality of seemingly senseless events of the Civil War – a critical period in American history.
What caused the war? Why did the Union defeat the Confederacy? What were the consequences of the War? The premise of the book is that historians have a comparative advantage in describing such events, but economists have the tools to help explain these events.
We use traditional economic analysis, some of it of the Austrian and Public Choice variety, to address these principal questions and our conclusions generally run counter to the interpretations of historians. In contrast to historians who emphasize the land war and military strategy, we show that the most important battle took place at sea. One side, the blockade runners, did not wear uniforms or fire weapons at their opponents. The other side, the blockading fleet, was composed of sailors who had weapons and guns but they rarely fired their cannons in hopes of damaging their opponents. Their pay was based on the valued of captured ships. Historians often have argued that the Confederacy lost because it was overly reluctant to use government power and economic controls, but we show the exact opposite. Big Confederate government brought the Confederacy to its knees.
Some now teach that slavery was the sole cause of the Civil War – an explanation that historians have developed in the twentieth century. However, this analysis does not explain why the war started in 1861 (rather than 1851 or 1841) and it fails to explain why slavery was abolished elsewhere without such horrendous carnage.
We emphasize economics and politics as major factors leading to war. The Republicans who came to power in 1860 supported a mercantilist economic agenda of protectionism, inflation, public works, and big government. High tariffs would have been a boon to manufacturing and mining in the north, but would have been paid largely by those in the export-oriented agriculture economy.
Southern economic interests understood the effects of these policies and decided to leave the union. The war was clearly related to slavery, but mainly in the sense that Republican tariffs would have squeezed the profitability out of the slave-based cotton plantation economy to the benefit of Northern industry (especially Yankee textiles and iron manufacturing). Southerners would also have lost out in terms of public works projects, government land giveaways, and inflation.
The real truth about wars is that they are not started over principle, but over power. Wars however, are not won by power on the battlefield, but by the workings and incentives of men who go to work in fields and factories, to those who transport, store and sell consumer goods, and most especially to the entrepreneurs and middlemen who make markets work and adapt to change. This emphasis and this economic account of tariffs, blockade and inflation, like the focus of Degas’s "Cotton Exchange" reveals the most important and least understood aspect of war.
One has to almost feel sorry for those poor fools, such as WhiskeyPapa, who buy into the propaganda completely and misdirect their admiration to such an unworthy object.
Article I, Section 1 which vests the powers within that article, of which the clause stating "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" is one, with the Congress.(GOPCAPITALIST)
I think it is hard to argue what is or is not in the constitution with someone who can't even admit and even lied about Linclon mentioning the Fugitive Slave Act in his inaugural speech. Like typical liberals, what's there isn't and what is not there is.
How about it Non-Seq, it's only been about a year with no reply on the Fugitive Slave Act issue?
"Whenever possible, we prefer to use the more traditional, antebellum Southern English orthography; widely known to many as the Oxford standard which once saw widespread usage in Dixie prior to the War for Southern Independence and Reconstruction and even some limited use afterwards. This is why you'll see words like "colour" and "organisation" throughout DixieNet instead of the spellings you were taught in school."
..........
" No self-respecting antebellum Southern writer would ever have considered using Webster (for obvious reasons) as a guide."
We honour our Lord and Saviour. Southern lexicon bump.
REALITY CHECK: "But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to call out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States."
I prefer to discuss what SCOTUS actually said, rather than to discuss your inaccurate paraphrase. The President may act alone in case of invasion, whether by a foreign nation or by states in rebellion. However, in case of insurrection, action pursuant to the Militia Act requires a state request. What are you going for, Walt? Invasion that did not require a state request, or insurrection that did require such request?
Specifically, SCOTUS partially restated the clause that says: "And, in case of an insurrection in any State against the Government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the Legislature of such State, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or States as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."
The Militia Act is not involved with the holding in the decision. SCOTUS was extracting Lincoln's chestnuts from the fire. SCOTUS was addressing the question of a blockade which led to the seizure of foreign ships and their cargo. One does not blockade in an insurrection, one closes the ports. A blockade is an act of war. SCOTUS found a war to exist. The ruling explicitly states that the authority to institute the blockade and make it lawful was jus belli or the laws of war.
SCOTUS did --NOT-- apply the Militia Act to the facts of the instant case and find it to have any relevance
Lincoln had cited the Militia Act. SCOTUS incompletely stated the content of the Act, not wanting publicly to make Lincoln look like a fool. That does not change the content of the Act.
AGAIN, HERE IS HOW THE COURT ACTUALLY RULED:
WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID:
THE QUESTION:Mr. Justice GRIER.
There are certain propositions of law which must necessarily affect the ultimate decision of these cases, and many others, which it will be proper to discuss and decide before we notice the special facts peculiar to each.
They are, 1st. Had the President a right to institute a blockade of ports in possession of persons in armed rebellion against the Government, on the principles of international law, as known and acknowledged among civilized States?
THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON THAT QUESTION:
On this first question therefore we are of the opinion that the President had a right, jure belli, to institute a blockade of ports in possession of the States in rebellion, which neutrals are bound to regard.
"The president had a right, jure belli...."
The president had a right pursuant to the laws of war....
[Walt] This is just another case of a neo-reb wanting only part of the record considered. I can't imagine how you expect to sway people when you are so blatantly unfair.
This is just another case of a a Lincoln-pimp deliberately misstating the ruling of the Supreme Court. I can't imagine how you expect to sway people when you are so blatantly manufacturing your facts and ignoring the actual ruling of a court decision, even after the actual ruling has been quoted to you.
OFFICIAL RECORDS, Volume 1, Series 1
Honorable WM. H. SEWARD, Secretary of State:
DEAR SIR: By great exertions, within less than six days from the time the subject was broached in the office of the President, a war steamer sails from this port; and the Atlantic, built under contract to be at the service of the United States in case of war, will follow this afternoon with 500 troops, of which one company is sappers and miners, one a mounted battery. The Illinois will follow on Monday with the stores which the Atlantic could not hold.
While the mere throwing of a few men into Fort Pickens may seem a small operation, the opening of a campaign is a great one.
Unless this moment is supported by ample supplies and followed up by the Navy it will be a failure. This is the beginning of the war which every statesman and soldier has foreseen since the passage of the South Carolina ordinance of secession. You will find the Army and the navy clogged at the head with men, excellent patriotic men, men who were soldiers and sailors forty years ago, but who now merely keep active men out of the places in which they could serve the country.
If you call out volunteers you have no general to command. The general born, not made, is yet to be found who is to govern the great army which is to save the country, if saved it can be. Colonel Keyes has shown intelligence, zeal, activity, and I look for a high future for him.
England took six months to get a soldier to the Crimea. We were from May to September in getting General Taylor before Monterey. Let us be supported; we got to serve our country, and our country should not neglect us or leave us to be strangled in tape, however red.
Respectfully,
M. C. MEIGS.
U. S. TROOP-SHIP ATLANTIC,
Lat. 32^13', Long. 74^49'15'', April 10, 1861.
Washington, D. C., February 27, 1865.
Bvt. Brigadier General E. D. TOWNSEND,
Assistant Adjutant-General, War Department:
MY DEAR GENERAL: The Navy Department has no copy of the instructions to D. D. Porter and other naval officers under which they co-operated with the expedition of April, 1861, to re-enforce Fort Pickens.
The President has none, and they have applied to me. My copies, I think, I placed in Hartsuff's hands. He was adjutant of the expedition.
Please forward the inclosed note to him, and if you have copies let me have for the Navy Department a copy of the President's order to Porter and to other naval officers. Also of the order to Colonel Brown, which required all naval officers to aid him.
General Scott knew of the expedition and its orders; and you were acting confidentially with him and may have had custody of those orders, which were kept secret even from the Secretaries of War and Navy, I believe.
Yours, truly,
M. C. MEIGS,
Quartermaster-General, Brevet Major-General.
QUARTERMASTER-GENERAL'S OFFICE,
Washington City, March 15, 1865.
Brigadier General E. D. TOWNSEND,
Assistant Adjutant-General, Washington, D. C.:
DEAR TOWNSEND: The Navy Department has lately inquired after the orders under which the Fort Pickens expedition was organized and carried out.
The instruction to Colonel Brown and to Captain D. D. Porter were
prepared by Colonel Keyes and by myself, or the greater part of them were so prepared, and the more important papers were signed by the President.
I left all my notes of these instructions with Hartsuff, that he might make up a complete record of the orders and instructions for the headquarters of the Department of Florida, of which Colonel Brown was placed in command. As he left Fort Pickens before they were engrossed, he left my papers in the office of the commander of the department.
The department having been broken up, it is probable that the records are still at Fort Pickens or Pensacola. I believe that the records of a department, when it is discontinued, should, by military rule, be sent to the Adjutant-General's Office at the War Department for safe keeping.
Would it not be well to send out orders for the transmission of the early records of headquarters of the Department of Florida to your office, so as to insure their preservation?
Inquiry at the Navy Department, and at the Executive Mansion and at the State Department, has failed to discover any copies of the orders.
It was an Executive act, unknown at the time to any but those engaged therein, including General Scott, the Secretary of State, and the President.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
M. C. MEIGS,
Quartermaster-General, Brevet Major-General, Chief Engineer of the Expedition to Relieve Fort Pickens in April, 1861.
Order of the President of the United States to the Secretary of the Navy, relieving
Lieutenant D. D. Porter, U. S. Navy, from special duty.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 11, 1861.
SIR: Lieutenant D. D. Porter was placed in command of the steamer Powhatan and Captain Samuel Mercer was detached therefrom by my special order, and neither of them is responsible for any apparent or real irregularity on their part or in connection with that vessel. Hereafter Captain Porter is relieved from that special service and placed nnder the direction of the Navy Department, from which he will receive instructions and to which he will report.
Very respectfully, ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
The SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.
Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress. Transcribed and Annotated by the Lincoln Studies Center, Knox College. Galesburg, Illinois.
From Gustavus V. Fox to John G. Nicolay, February 22, 1865
Washington, Feby 22 1865
Dear Sir:
Early in April 1861, the U S S Powhatan, under the command of Lieut. D. D. Porter, was despatched from New York to Pensacola on confidential service. [1] The orders were from the President direct and do not appear in the records of this Department. If there is a record of them in your office, will you be kind enough to furnish a copy for the files of this department?
[Note 1 David D. Porter, aboard the USS Powhatan, was dispatched by special Presidential order to the relief of Ft. Pickens in Pensacola harbor. See Official Records, Series I, Volume 1, 406-07; and Nicolay to Fox, February 24, 1865.] G. V. Fox.
Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress. Transcribed and Annotated by the Lincoln Studies Center, Knox College. Galesburg, Illinois.
From John G. Nicolay to Gustavus V. Fox, February 24, 1865
Copy
Washington, Feb'y 24, 1865.
Dear Sir:
In reply to your letter of the 22d inst., the President requests me to say that he thinks no record was kept here of the orders given to Lieut. D. D. Porter, in regard to his confidential mission to Pensacola in the U. S. S. Powhatan, in 1861. [1] The President however remembers that Lieut. Porter was selected at the suggestion of Brevet. Maj. Genl. (then Captain) Montgomery C. Meigs, who, he thinks may be able to inform you where the records or memoranda you desire were kept.
[Note 1 David D. Porter, aboard the USS Powhatan, was dispatched by special Presidential order to the relief of Ft. Pickens in Pensacola harbor. See Official Records, Series I, Volume 1, 406-07; and Fox to Nicolay, February 22, 1865.]
Your obt servt
(signed) Jno. G. Nicolay
Priv. Sec.
No, it clearly does not.
"And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."
When the laws are obstructed, the president may act unilaterally.
Walt
Can you say coverup? Sure you can.
If you had ever read the legislation authorizing the so-called peace commissioners, you would have found that their instructions were A: for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations between that government and the confederate states of america, and B: the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments. So before any other discussions on settlement of disputed items or renumeration for constuction costs of forts, etc., Lincoln had to give in accept the legitimacy of the southern regime and independence for the confederacy. Everything else was secondary. And you blame Lincoln for not accepting that pre-condition? Lincoln would have been more than happy to meet with the delegation if a peacefull end to the rebellion had been one of the options open for discussion. It was not. Davis sent the commissioners there to fail, and give him a moral victory. He threw that away when he started his war.
Not really, no.
Not really, no.
What the hell are you babbling about?
That is your opinion, and the opions of may others, but not one shared by Abraham Lincoln. Since the Constitution does not explicitly state who may suspend habeas corpus then it would be for the Supreme Court to determine who is right. And the haven't done that yet.
You are hopeless.
I will now put it in context.
Designation of Section 1, and Clauses added for clarity]
[Sec. 1] Be it enacted, &c., [Clause 1: Invasion] That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the State or States most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper. [Clause 2: Insurrection Against a State Government] And, in case of an insurrection in any State against the Government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the Legislature of such State, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or States as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection,Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, [Clause 1: Obstruction of the Courts] That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed in any State, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such State, or of any other State or States, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress,
Section 1, Clause 1, relates to invasions. Section 1, Clause 2 relates to insurrection against a State government. This part of the act was referred to in the Prize cases. It was not the basis of the ruling but it was mentioned.
Section 2, Clause 1, relates to obstruction of the courts and provision of assistance to the Marshals of said courts.
This has nothing to do with either invasion or insurrection.
This is unrelated to what is cited in the Prize Cases.
This is unrelated to what Lincoln cited.
Within the CSA, there were no Federal courts, and there were no marshals to assist. They had all resigned.
This desperate "Hail Mary" is legally assinine. It does not even pass the giggle test.
The Prize Cases concerned the Union blockade of Confederate ports, and the seizure of foreign ships and cargo. It was not about assisting the marshals of the courts.
The Supreme Court did not find a state of obstruction of the courts beyond the capability of the (non-existent) marshals of the (non-existent) courts. It found a state of war. It found a blockade was authorized pursuant to the jus belli, the laws of war.
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 1, Part 1 (Union Letters, Orders, Reports)
The O.R. copy contains many OCR errors. I copied from here:
By the President of the United States of America.--A Proclamation.
Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue can not be effectually executed therein, conformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States; and
Whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection have threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas and in the waters of the United States; and
Whereas an Executive proclamation has been already issued requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, and convening Congress in extraordinary session to deliberate and determine thereon:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, with a view to the same purposes before mentioned, and to the protection of public peace and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations until Congress shall have assembled and deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings, or until the same shall have ceased, have further deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States and of the law of nations in such case provided. For this purpose a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with a view to violate such blockade a vessel shall approach or shall attempt to leave either of the said ports, she will be duly warned by the commander of one of the blockading vessels, who will endorse on her register the fact and date of such warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port she will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port for such proceedings against her and her cargo as prize as may be deemed advisable.
And I hereby proclaim and declare that if any person, under the pretended authority of the said States, or under any other pretense, shall molest a vessel of the United States, or the persons or cargo on board of her, such person will be held amenable to the laws of the United States for the prevention and punishment of piracy.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington this nineteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.
[L.S.]
Abraham Lincoln.
By the President:
William H. Seward,
Secretary of State.
Proclamation of the President of the United States regarding extension of blockade to the ports of Virginia and North Carolina, April 27, 1861.
Whereas, for the reasons assigned in my proclamation of the 19th instant, a blockade of the ports of the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, was ordered to be established; and, whereas, since that date public property of the United States has been seized, the collection of the revenue obstructed, and duly commissioned officers of the United States, while engaged in executing the orders of their superiors, have been arrested and held in custody as prisoners, or have been impeded in the discharge of their official duties without due legal process by persons claiming to act under authority of the States of Virginia and North Carolina, an efficient blockade of the ports of those States will therefore also be established.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington, this twenty-seventh day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.
[L.S.]
Abraham Lincoln.
By the President:
William H. Seward,
Secretary of State.
Message to Congress in Special Session
July 4, 1861
Recurring to the action of the government, it may be stated that, at first, a call was made for seventy-five thousand militia; and rapidly following this, a proclamation was issued for closing the ports of the insurrectionary districts by proceedings in the nature of Blockade. So far all was believed to be strictly legal. At this point the insurrectionists announced their purpose to enter upon the practice of privateering. Other calls were made for volunteers, to serve three years, unless sooner discharged; and also for large additions to the regular Army and Navy. These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon, under what appeared to be a popular demand, and a public necessity; trusting, then as now, that Congress would readily ratify them. It is believed that nothing has been done beyond the constitutional competency of Congress.
a proclamation was issued for closing the ports of the insurrectionary districts by proceedings in the nature of Blockade
He meant to say that he proclaimed a blockade. He proclaimed a blockade, not a closing of the ports. He did eventually get around to closing the ports -- on April 11, 1865, four days before he died.
Just before the war ended, Lincoln issued an order closing the ports, rather than blockading them.
From Gideon Welles, Lincoln and Johnson, First Paper, Galaxy Magazine, April 1872, p. 523
Mr. Seward, who had been uneasy since his return, [nc: Seward had been thrown from his carriage and injured] read to the Secretary of the Treasury and myself the draft of a proclamation he had prepared for the President to sign, closing the ports of the Southern States. This was a step which I had earnestly pressed at the beginning of the rebellion, as a domestic measure, and more legitimate than a blockade, which was international, and an admission that we were two nations.* * *
The President reached Washington on the evening of Sunday, the 9th of April. When I called on him the next morning he was in excellent spirits, the news of Lee’s surrender, which however was not unanticipated, having been received. While I was with him he signed the proclamation for closing the ports and expressed his gratification that Mr. Seward and myself concurred in the measure, alluding to our former differences.
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 5, Part 1, page 107
(Union Letters, Orders, Reports)
VII. April 11, 1865.-Closing certain ports.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas, by my proclamations of the nineteenth and twenty-seventh days of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one the ports of the United States in the State of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas were declared to be subject to blockade; but whereas, the said blockade has, in consequence of actual military occupation by this Government, since been conditionally set aside or relaxed in respect to the ports of Norfolk and Alexandria, in the State of Virginia; Beaufort, in the State of North Carolina; Port Royal, in the State of South Carolina; Pensacola and Fernandina, in the State of Florida, and New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana;
And whereas, by the fourth section of the act of Congress approved on the thirteenth of July, eighteen hundred and sixty- one; entitled "An act further to provide for the collection of duties on imports, and for other purposes," the President, for the reasons therein set forth, is authorized to close certain ports of entry:
Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim that the ports of Richmond, Tappahannock, Cherrystone, Yorktown, and Petersburg, in Virginia; of Camden (Elizabeth City), Edenton, Plymouth, Washington, New Berne, Ocracoke, and Wilmington, in North Carolina; of Charleston, Georgetown, and Beaufort, in South Carolina; of Savannah, Saint Mary's, and Brunswick (Darien), in Georgia; of Mobile, in Alabama; of Pearl River (Shieldsborough), Natchez, and Vicksburg, in Mississippi; of Saint Augustine, Key West, Saint Mark's (Port Leon), Saint John's (Jacksonville), and Apalachicola, in Florida; of Teche (Franklin), in Louisiana; of Galveston, La Salle, Brazos de Santiago (Point Isabel), and Brownsville, in Texas, are hereby closed, and all right of importation, warehousing, and other privileges shall, in respect to the ports aforesaid, cease, until they shall have again been opened by order of the President; and if, whole said ports are so closed, any ship or vessel from beyond the United States, or having on board any articles subject to duties, furniture, and cargo, shall be forfeited to the United States.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington this eleventh day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty- ninth.
[L. S.]
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
Secretary of State.
Yep. I can say coverup.
STONEWALL #1
O.R. Series 1, Vol. 1, Part 1, Page 440-1
Message of the President of the United States, in answer to a resolution of the Senate requesting information concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in his message of the 4th instant.
JULY 31, 1861.- Read, ordered to lie on the table and be printed.
To the Senate of the United States:
In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, requesting information concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in my message of the 4th instant, I transmit a report from the Secretary of War.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
JULY 30, 1861.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
July 29, 1861.
The Secretary of the Navy, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, requesting the President of the United States to "communicate to the Senate (if not incompatible with the public interest) the character of the quasi armistice to which he refers in his message of the 4th instant, be reason of which the commander of the frigate Sabine refused to transfer the United States troops into Fort Pickens in obedience to his orders; by whom and when such armistice was entered into; and if any, and what, action has been taken by the Government in view of the disobedience of the order of the President aforesaid," has the honor to report that it is believed the communication of the information called for would not, at this time, comport with the public interest.
Respectfully submitted.
GIDEON WELLES.
The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
STONEWALL #2
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 30, 1861.
To the SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 23rd instant requesting information concerning the imprisonment of Lieutenant John J. Worden [John L. Worden], of the U. S. Navy, I transmit a report from the Secretary of the Navy.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
[Inclosure.]
NAVY DEPARTMENT, July 29, 1861.
The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
The Secretary of the Navy, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate of the 23rd instant requesting the President of the United States to inform the Senate "under what circumstances Lieutenant John J. Worden [John L. Worden], of the U. S. Navy, has been imprisoned at Montgomery, Ala., whether he is still in prison, and whether any and if any what measures have been taken by the Government of the United States for his release," has the honor to report that it is believed the communication of the information called for would not at this time comport with the public interest.
Respectfully submitted.
GIDEON WELLES.
I disagree. The Confederacy and SC made several attempts to end the matter peacefully. Meet with them. Conduct negotiations. At least make some attempt at a peaceful settlement. Let tempers calm. Maybe Lincoln could have convinced them to rejoin the union.
South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas all seceded before the special session of Congress began 4 Mar 1861. When that session ended, the seceded states were still seceded. No invasion, no declaration of war. Lincoln waited until Congress was out of the way and then attacked.
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.