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

To: lentulusgracchus
We don't have sections, bud. We have States, and you know the difference, which is why you avoided using the word.

OK. Had Lincoln declared a blockade of France or Spain then you would be correct. However, Lincoln was blockading rebellious states of his own country. Happy?

Lincoln did.

Lincoln did not.

The Confederacy declared war on the United States on May 6, when Jefferson Davis signed the articles of war passed by the Confederate congress -- of which neither Virginia nor North Carolina were members. Lincoln blockaded them both on April 27.

Davis had signed a proclamation authorizing the granting of letters of marque and reprisal, allowing them to make war on merchant ships of the United States. You seem to believe that the blockade was an act of war, well, what was this?

...whereas the South had let it be known, that they wanted to depart the Union in peace. Can't have that.

Maybe it was the bombardment of Sumter that confused him.

...blockade -- an act of war, and in peacetime unconstitutional...

So you claim. But please show where that is true.

Show me where the Militia Act authorizes blockades of States of the Union in time of peace. Then I'll show you a section of the Militia Act that is unconstitutional.

The militia act had nothing to do with that. It was within his powers as commander in chief to deploy the fleet in whatever matter he chose. In this case it was to supress rebellion in the southern states. But he also fired on Militia units -- and the Militia are the People in arms. Doesn't get any more personal or more belligerent than that.

North Carolina had already utilized her militia to sieze U.S. facilities. As for Virginia, let me quote John Imboden, who was later a confederate army brigadier. An essay of his in "Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, Volume 1" starts with the sentence "The movement to capture Harper's Ferry, Virginia, and the fire-arms manufactured and stored there was organized at the Exchange Hotel in Richmond on the night of April 16th, 1861." The day before the rebellion was voted on. Sorry, but your claims of poor, innocent Virginia being trampled by the Yankee horde doesn't ring true.

They did NOT give him the right to use the United States military to coerce a People.

Nor did they deny him the right to use the military to combat rebellion.

And your saying it makes it so. How neat.

I suppose I'm supposed to say, "What am I thinking? Of course the actions of the southern states was legal. letulusgracchus said it was."

468 posted on 08/21/2002 6:03:12 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
Davis had signed a proclamation authorizing the granting of letters of marque and reprisal, allowing them to make war on merchant ships of the United States. You seem to believe that the blockade was an act of war, well, what was this?

It was privateering -- oops, fallacy of distraction again. Davis issued his proclamation on April 17th. North Carolina wasn't out yet, Virginia was still voting in her convention that day. Which means Davis didn't speak for Virginia or North Carolina. But Lincoln blockaded them anyway -- an act of war.

Privateering is short of war, by the way. We had engaged in a campaign under letters of marque, IIRC, against the French 60 years earlier. But we never went to war with France, ever.

As to the unconstitutionality of a peacetime blockade of States, I've directed you twice before, thrice now, to Article I Section 9, to the clause forbidding requiring ships to clear duties in any one state, over another.

As for John Imboden and the people in the Exchange Hotel, then it's clear they planned to execute something illegal under U.S. law, and the leader of the expedition, btw, was Thomas Jackson.

Personally I'd have handled that all differently, and would have simply waited for the federal troops to leave and take their equipment with them. I'd have preferred political education for a few years, before attempting to secede. But that's a difference in temperament, times, and possibly hindsight working. There was a much greater bias for forthrightness and prompt, direct action in the nineteenth century.

However, Lincoln was blockading rebellious states of his own country. Happy?

I'd like to be, but you overlook the fact that a state preparing to exercise its right of secession isn't "rebellious"; rather, it's being true to its People.

And the fact that they were still making up their minds, makes it a doubtful proposition that they had yet done anything to merit the unleashing upon them of the dogs of war. Which Lincoln did, by announcing his blockade.

470 posted on 08/21/2002 6:27:26 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | 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