Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GOPcapitalist
Blockading is an act of war, and against a state that has not even participated the commonly accepted "cause" for blockading this shows Lincoln to be the agressor. Do you know if he did the same to North Carolina?

Lincoln ordered Virginia and North Carolina included in the blockade on the same day, April 27, 1861. North Carolina didn't convene a secession convention until May 20th. Federal warships had been seizing Southern merchant ships since May 1st, and naval vessels had cannonaded Virginia militia batteries on May 9th and May 18th. The latter attack was at Sewell's Point (now part of Norfolk Naval Base, opposite Fort Monroe), and is considered by some contemporary historians to be the opening of Lincoln's military campaign against Virginia.

On the same day North Carolina seated its convention, May 20th, United States marshals, acting under Lincoln's orders, seized all the telegraph correspondence in the U.S., in order to examine it for "evidence" of pro-secessionist views.

As of April 27th, the day Lincoln ordered North Carolina blockaded, to answer your question, the Tarheels hadn't done squat and were still United States citizens and members of the Union.

The Confederate congress had passed a bill, and Jefferson Davis had signed it on May 6th, stating that a state of war now existed between the Confederacy and the United States, but until May 20th, North Carolina was still in the Union. Virginia was arguably out as of April 17th, when the secession convention voted Virginia out, but the ratifying plebiscite wasn't held until May 23rd. The actual dates when North Carolina and Virginia officially joined the Confederacy and became de jure belligerents would need further research, but the state of belligerency was arguably initiated by Lincoln's blockade, which was and is an act of war, not a police action, on April 27, 1861.

Lincoln's blockade of Virginia and North Carolina was a violation of Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, which says in relevant part:

"No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."

Lincoln's blockade clearly violated that clause of the Constitution.

329 posted on 08/15/2002 5:31:19 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies ]


To: lentulusgracchus
As of April 27th, the day Lincoln ordered North Carolina blockaded, to answer your question, the Tarheels hadn't done squat and were still United States citizens and members of the Union.

Quite the contrary, North Carolina had made it's position clear before the blockade was extended. Let's look at the proclamation first, dated April 27, 1861. The body of it states as follows:

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.

Virginia is not an issue. They had issued a ordinance of secession ten days earlier. They were in a state of rebellion as of that time and Lincoln was quite correct in extending the bolcade to them. They should have been included in the original proclamation.

What about North Carolina? While it is true that the North Carolina declaration of secession was dated May 20, that was a mere formality and their actions had been hostile to the United States for some time. On April 15, state authorities siezed Fort Macon. A day later they siezed Fort Carswell and Fort Johnston. On April 21st the state siezed the branch mint at Charlotte and on the 22nd they siezed the U.S. Armory at Fayetteville. There was no doubt that North Carolina had joined the rebellion and Lincoln didn't need a formal declaration to recognize that. The blockade was justified.

332 posted on 08/15/2002 5:51:34 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies ]

To: lentulusgracchus
"No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."

Lincoln's blockade clearly violated that clause of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

See the Prize Cases from 1862.

Walt

355 posted on 08/16/2002 4:00:45 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies ]

To: lentulusgracchus
As of April 27th, the day Lincoln ordered North Carolina blockaded, to answer your question, the Tarheels hadn't done squat and were still United States citizens and members of the Union.

Earlier in the year, traitors in North Carolina had siezed two federal forts.

You can look it up.

But I guess ignorance is bliss-- or maybe you knew that, but can now plead plausible deniability through -pleading-ignorance.

Walt

405 posted on 08/17/2002 5:28:44 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson