Wasn't the situation serious enough?"
No, not on April 15, which is when Lincoln both called up troops and called for Congress to convene on July 4.
It's clear from Lincoln's April 15 message that he expects military actions to be limited, relatively bloodless:
- "...the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to re-possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country."
July 4 seems to me a patriotic day to call for Congress, not certain there was any other thought in it.
And July 4 puts the lie to pro-Confederate claims that the Federal government was in such dire financial straights.
Had the problem been as urgent as claimed, Lincoln would need Congress back right away -- as did Jefferson Davis.
rustbucket: "Was the New York Times pro-Confederate?
It reported what was said about the depleted state of the Treasury in February 1861 (i.e., the financial straits)"
Your link says that Congress' February action was "ineffectual", but Lincoln was offered by Congress to stay in session after March 28 and he declined, which strongly suggests the Federal finances were then not in as dire condition as sometimes claimed.
rustbucket: "While Lincoln's incentive to provoke respond to Confederate provocations of war was economic constitutional, his objective after the attack on Fort Sumter expedition was to cement that war in place defend the Constitution by invading the South restoring Federal properties and blockading their ports suppress the rebellion, all without with any necessary Congressional interference support.
That was his way of solving the two-tariff situation defeating rebellion that had the potential to ruin the Northern economy United States."
Sir, it takes a lot of work to correct your mistakes, but I think I got them all...
rustbucket: "Lincoln was still concerned with getting sufficient revenue to run the government after the attack on Fort Sumter.
He used that as an excuse for not moving toward peace and conciliation as urged by the Baltimore delegation that had an audience with him ("... what is to become of the revenue? I shall have no government -- no resources.")."
I think we've established that your "quote" itself is unconfirmed and even if accurate certainly taken out of context.
Sure, that Lincoln could be concerned about Federal revenues is totally understandable, but that he would express such concerns in this particular context, not so much.
rustbucket: "The following is just a partial list of the unconstitutional acts Congress members accused Lincoln of doing:"
Sure, opposition Democrats will say anything to smear Republicans, that's what they do.
But I would first refer you to various US Militia Acts (i.e., 1792), and then note that Congress itself did not censure any of Lincoln's actions and indeed strongly supported him throughout the war.
rustbucket: "Speaking of Ex parte Merryman..."
The author of the unspeakably wicked Dred-Scott decision was here effectively speaking out of school & out of court as a private individual and, as usual, was blathering nonsense.
In fact the Constitution recognizes Habeas Corpus is subject to normal peacetime conditions, and Congress eventually authorized Lincoln's actions.
Further, Tanney's useless bloviating did not actually direct Lincoln to do anything, so Lincoln never "failed to comply".
rustbucket: "So, during the interim between the attack on Fort Sumter and the delayed recall of Congress, Lincoln assumed the powers of Congress, the powers of the Judicial Branch, and even violated some of the Bill of Rights."
In fact, none of Lincoln's actions were censured by either Congress or the Supreme Court, so your opinions here are just that: pro-Confederate opinions.
rustbucket: "How do you justify Lincoln doing what he did?
Or is it OK with you that Obama assumed Legislative and Judicial powers also?"
The US Constitution recognizes the need for Federal responses to invasion or rebellion, which was not the case during the past eight years.
Again I refer you to various US Militia Acts.
rustbucket: "Congress can’t excuse or approve obvious violations of the Constitution after the fact.
They don’t have that power.
Such power would lead to anarchy or despotism."
Sure, from time to time both the Supreme Court and Congress take exceptions to presidential actions and so pass laws or rulings to modify them.
That is government & politics as usual, happens under every administration.
But if the President is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" then Congress' Constitutional response is much more direct: impeachment.
Nothing like that happened during the Civil War.
rustbucket: "All of this reminds me of Comey and Lynch not charging Hillary with her obvious violations of law.
Lincoln was their president -- they weren't going to go after their guy for violating the Constitution."
And just as today, citizens' remedies included voting the b*st*rds out of office, which they would have in 1862, 1864 or 1866, had Lincoln lost the war, but did not because they believed he could win it.
Bottom line here, FRiend, is that you wish to have restricted Union actions so they would lose the war, with equal restrictions not imposed on Confederates.
It's a argument that only appeals to Lost Causers.
rustbucket: "Back to the question of Lincoln and the expedition to Fort Sumter.
Lincoln had accomplished what he wanted with his expedition to Fort Sumter."
No, in the letter you quote out of context, Lincoln acknowledges his mission failed, while encouraging Fox not to blame himself.
- "PRESIDENT LINCOLN TO CAPT. FOX.
WASHINGTON, May 1, 1861.
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.
The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test.
By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground; while, by an accident, for which you were in no wise responsible, and possibly I to some extent was, you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise.
'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.'
Very truly, your friend, A. LINCOLN."
rustbucket: "He had to solve the two tariff situation that would ruin the Northern economy. "
In fact, your alleged "two tariff situation" has been exposed as nonsense, first by DoodleDawg on this thread (his post #1,324 to PeaRidge), because no rational businessman would ship his products through the Confederacy to Union customers, because that would tax them twice!
So that argument is just rubbish, and you people should give it up.
rustbucket: "I previously posted that his cabinet and military advisors had told him the result of Fox’s expedition would be a shooting war."
But more important than such opinions is the stern warning from Confederate Secretary of State Toombs to Jefferson Davis:
- "Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North.
You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death.
It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."
So the real question here is not, "why did Lincoln attempt to resupply Fort Sumter?" but rather, "why did Jefferson Davis use Lincoln's resupply mission as his excuse to start Civil War?"
And the clear answer is: because that was necessary to force Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas to secede and join his Confederacy's war against the United States.
rustbucket: "Precisely.
He got the war he wanted.
Lincoln took an action that his advisors told him would provoke war, and afterwards he seemed satisfied that it resulted in war."
No, because in early 1861 all Unionists, including Lincoln and four former presidents, believed unilateral declarations of secession at pleasure were unlawful, but the Federal government could not take military actions to stop it unless the Confederacy started war.
It was precisely the feelings of Americans in 1941 regarding WWII -- they had to start it.
Once Confederates did start war, then every Unionist believed military responses were required.
rustbucket: "After the attack on Fort Sumter, he proclaimed a blockade on Southern ports, an internationally recognized act of war."
No, blockades have a very long history not always resulting from or in war, especially as related to rebellions.
But Confederates did make a formal declaration of war, on May 6, 1861.
rustbucket: "I've posted how the revenue in 1861 compared with 1860 revenue."
As have others (see PeaRidge's post #1,540 and my post #1,553).
These numbers demonstrate that, despite your claims, US tariff revenues fell only 26% in 1861, then rose 19%, 37% and 51% in following years.
So clearly your argument here is full of holes and carries no water.
rustbucket: "...perhaps that shortage of funds and revenue is why Lincoln unconstitutionally moved funds that Congress had appropriated for one purpose and spent it in another area."
So you people often claim, but I've seen no data to support it, or records of Congressional or Court actions against it.
Civil War began at Fort Sumter:
And yes, it was all about slavery: