Like I said, a newcomer who knew little to nothing about the Senate.
rustbucket: "The opposition had the votes to pass whatever they wanted."
A determined, experienced minority can always wheel, deal and negotiate better terms than would be available otherwise.
rustbucket: "That may be true, but there were folks on the other side just as determined not to compromise.
And besides, the other side had the votes to pass whatever they wanted."
Somebody famous once wrote a book called "The Art of the Deal", which I've not read, but am certain tells us that anyone can negotiate improved terms & conditions, if they'll make the effort and play their cards right.
rustbucket quoting Schurz to Lincoln: "Some time ago you told me, that you did not want to call an extra-session of Congress for fear of reopening the compromise-agitation.
You were undoubtedly right then.
But any vigorous act on the part of your Administration, any display of power and courage will remove that danger...."
The record shows many Republicans urging Lincoln not to compromise basic principles just to appease secessionists.
And the fact is that no compromise agitation ever resulted in favorable responses from secessionists, so such advice was sound.
rustbucket quoting: "...'the committee had waited on the President, and had been informed by him that he had no further communication to make to the Senate'...
rustbucket: "That same day, March 28 [Klein, "Days of Defiance", page 358], Lincoln instructed Fox to prepare an order arranging for the things necessary for the Sumter expedition, an expedition that his military advisors and cabinet previously said would result in a shooting war."
In fact, Lincoln was still hoping to negotiate a peaceful withdrawal from Fort Sumter -- "a fort for a state" was the deal he wanted -- and in the mean time, Major Anderson informed Washington that his food supplies would run out in two more weeks.
So preparations for resupply of Fort Sumter were both necessary and in normal order, not assuming they would lead to war.
In the end, secessionists refused Lincoln's offer of a fort for a state (Virginia), but peaceful resupply of Fort Sumter was still possible, at least in Lincoln's mind.
And if it failed (as it did), then open rebellion would justify Lincoln's use of military forces to defeat it.
rustbucket: "Lincoln waited until the Senate adjourned (the House had already adjourned) to plan his effort to provoke war.
If Lincoln's expedition was simply a peaceful expedition to provide food for Fort Sumter, why not tell the Senate?"
No peaceful resupply mission to US army forts was a matter for Congressional approval.
And by March 28, 1861 it was still entirely possible for successful discussions to produce peaceful results.
It appears that not until Lincoln's April 4 meeting with Virginian John B. Baldwin was his idea of "a fort for a state" abandoned.
Even then it was not certain in Lincoln's mind that resupplying Fort Sumter must necessarily lead to war, and without some agreement, he had no other choice than attempt it.
rustbucket: "Somehow a probable war was not important enough inform the Senate and keep them in session?
Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war, not the President."
A peaceful resupply mission has never required Congressional action.
rustbucket: "Lincoln kept Congress out of session until July 4."
No, Congress does not need a President to call it into session, it can convene whenever it wants.
So Lincoln called Congress back to Washington DC months earlier than it would have convened on its own.
Indeed to have convened Congress before July 1861 would have put it in extreme danger of an expected Confederate assault on Washington, DC.
Lincoln waited until there were enough troops defending Washington to promise Congress safety.
And, as it happened, Congress then fully supported everything Lincoln had done up to that point, including your litany of his allegedly nefarious actions.
rustbucket: "He did all this without having the normal checks and balances that the Congress would provide.
He didn't want the Congress interfering with his plans."
Nonsense.
When it convened in July, Congress did not "check" or "balance" Lincoln, but approved and supported his actions, all of them, and continued to do so throughout the Civil War.
[BroJoeK]: No, Congress does not need a President to call it into session, it can convene whenever it wants.
So Lincoln called Congress back to Washington DC months earlier than it would have convened on its own.
You are mistaken. Both houses of Congress adjourned sine die -- The House on March 2, 1861, and the Special Session of the Senate on March 28, 1861. Both adjourned without setting a date to reconvene.
Here is the impact of that sine die adjournment:
The United States House of Representatives adjourned sine die [1] on March 2, 1861, and under parliamentary law, ceased to exist as a lawful deliberative body. An adjournment sine die closes the session, and if there is no provision for convening the assembly again, the adjournment dissolves the assembly.
With both the House and Senate adjourned without setting a reconvene date, they could not reconvene on their own initiative. They were dissolved. The date set by the Constitution for the next session to begin was December 2, 1861. The only other way Congress could reconvene before then was if Lincoln reconvened them, which he did at a date of his choosing, July 4, 1861.
This was consistent with the Constitution.
From Article I (Legislature), Section 4:
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.From Article II (Executive), Section 3:
... [The President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them ...
Once both houses of Congress had adjourned sine dei, Lincoln started planning his secret expedition to Fort Sumter and did all of the various unconstitutional things which I've listed above after the attack on Fort Sumter without having to worry about any Congressional interference.