Lincoln's First Sixty Days

[bokscar]

Did I not say the states left individually? does not def. 1.a fit?
In this case, I think it is indicative of acting on one's own either as a person or as a party.

[bokscar]

There is a "Right of Revolution" which is a natural right, not a legal right. The "right to secede" is less well known or accepted as either a natural or legal right. If there was such a thing as the "right" to secede outside of being a political debating point or theory of government found in the dusty hall of academe, then secessionists might have a point. Like secession itself, it is at best a debatable point. Its foundations not nearly firm enough to risk ones life or fortune on.
The point being, the right to secede does not exist. You cannot exercise a right that does not exist. The silence of the Constitution cannot be used to prove it exists. 0 x 0 x 0 = 0

H Hinkle,
The right to forbid secession was at best a debatable point as well by that logic. One only viable due only to the 'might makes right' line of thinking. It's foundations were not any more secure, not enough to risk others lives and fortunes on.

You cannot exercise a right that does not exist? What country are you from? You have a only constitutional right to do everything you do or you have no right to do anything? Why did the constitution even bother mentioning the States and delegating them rights not specifically covered by the constitution? For that matter, why call them States? If I recall correctly the Federalists did not even want a Bill of Rights to start with. They only gave in to get the constitution ratified.

''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' Madison

The silence of the constitution cannot be used to prove it does not exist either. So your mathematical commentary of your 'opinion' would just as well stand either way. And in the end, the result was the same.

As to your unilateral definition, it would only work if you said there were 11 unilateral secessions. Otherwise it merely makes no sense. Either historically or definition-wise.





(Message edited by aphillbilly on August 27, 2004)

[bokscar]

Revolution has a long history, secession does not. It's existence and what the Constitution's silence concerning it meant was, then, a debatable point.
It's existence and use in the Constitution was a matter of interpretation. Problems of interpretation of the Constitution is provided in the Constitution. Instead, the South chose to settle the question once and for all with the Sword.

[dawna]

In my queset for knowledge of all things pertaining to the Civil War, I must confess that I am just a Cowgirl from Southern Ontario who has long been deeply fascinated with American history, and in particular, the Civil War. On any given day, I can be as passionate regarding my Southern neighbours as I am about my own country to the North. I am exceedingly proud to say that I have American relatives who have lived in the Boston area for many, many years. Their ancestors left Cape Breton Island to pursue their dream of finding a better life, and hopefully new opportunities. This they realized south of the border.

There is no doubt that my ancestors at the time would have expressed very fierce loyalties to the preservation of the Union, while I prefer to waffle around somewhere betwen the Blue and the Gray, until I finally come to my own conclusions. I offer this bit of personal information only in an effort to explain my awkwardness as I peruse the Boards, and as further reasoning for my many questions. It also explains my lack of knowledge regarding the U.S. Constitution, but thus far you have tolerated my fumblings, and allowed me to stay my course.

Having said the above, I do have some understanding of separation issues since Canada has had it's own problems with Quebec wanting to leave our nation. But I will always struggle with the issue of slavery at the time of the Civil War, and how a people so passionate about freedom and independence saw fit to deny those same heady ideals to an entire race of people.

The United States Constitution is a masterpiece and since Neil has encouraged me to study it, I am doing so with great enthusiasm. Numerous times I have heard the Southern debaters say that the Constitution was "open to interpretation" and while that may be true, I can not find anything to indicate that a state has a right to secede...which would mean that the South did in fact violate the U.S. Constitution...is this correct?

During Lincoln's campaign, the South had announced that if a Republican was elected, the Union would be dissolved and the fault would be the North's. As Lincoln said, "A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver or I shall kill you and then you will be a murderer." This reminds me of the line in Cold Mountain, "They spread a dark cloud over this land and then they stand and say s**t, it's raining."

I understand that President Lincoln's inaugaural speech held no surprises for the North or the South, and if it was not enlightening, it was at least safely delivered. Lincolon reassured the South that he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it already existed, or objection to the proposed ammendment forbiding Federal interference with slavery. Lincoln added that each state had the right to control it's domestic institutions.

In Lincoln's statement that "the Union of the States is perpetual," I am hard pressed to understand how this could have been perceived as "coercion," or considered a "declaration of war."

Regarding the events prior to and after the firing on Fort Sumter, these are the facts as I understand them:

President Lincoln received Major Anderson's February 28th report the day after his inauguration. Anderson clearly stated that he would be forced to surrender Fort Sumter in 6 weeks unless he was resupplied within that time. On January 9th, "The Star of the West" bringing supplies and an additional 200 troops to the fort was fired on by South Carolina, and the ship was forced to retreat. How did S.C. justify this action?

To avoid "hasty action so as to gain time for the administration to get in working order, and it's policy to be understood," Lincoln consulted with General Scott who advised him that " it would require a naval expedition, 5000 regular troops and 20,000 volunteer soldiers to reinforce the fort." Since these could not be produced, surrender was "merely a question of time."

The Sumter crisis was the topic of discussion at a Cabinet meeting on March 9th, and it was concluded that the fort must be surrendered. Lincoln was not willing at that point to surrender Fort Sumter and I have to ask, if President Lincoln had done so, would this have been no different than surrendering the Union...possibly an act of treason? Did the President not have the right to maintain the authority of the Government?

With the advice of the majority of the cabinet, Lincoln directed Welles and Cameron to have an expedition reinforce Fort Sumter by April 6th. This decision was not lightly reached and was borne with considerable angst. I don't believe that these are the actions of a blood-thirsty Presidenet who was looking for war.

Also on April 6th, Lincoln sent Robert Chew to Charleston with orders to inform Governor Pickens that "an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only; and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice." With a reasonable message such as this Thea, how is there even the slightest possibility that Major Anderson could be secretly reinforced?

In the weeks and events leading up to the firing on Fort Sumter, I'm inclined to believe that President Lincoln's intent was peaceable throughout the crisis and that he did not seek to provoke war. Between Lincoln's inauguration and the firing on Fort Sumter, he vowed not to be the first to shed blood, but he also vowed not to surrender the forts. South Caroline knew this, so the question remains "who provoked who?"

And so down the slippery "northern" slopes I slide, bumping along in hopes that I might dally for awhile, but never lofty enough to actually think there could ever be enough time to devote to this haunting time in history.

Dawna

[gray_ghost]

Dawna wrote:

Numerous times I have heard the Southern debaters say that the Constitution was "open to interpretation" and while that may be true, I can not find anything to indicate that a state has a right to secede...which would mean that the South did in fact violate the U.S. Constitution...is this correct?

Not exactly Dawna. The debate rages even today about the 10th Amendment, which basically says that any right or powers not specifically granted to the central government are reserved for the individual States. Since secession is not mentioned, it was considered at the time of the WBtS to be a right reserved for States to make the determination if secession was necessary.

Dawna wrote:

On January 9th, "The Star of the West" bringing supplies and an additional 200 troops to the fort was fired on by South Carolina, and the ship was forced to retreat. How did S.C. justify this action?


South Carolina had advised Washington DC that any attempt to resupply or reinforce the fort would be considered an act of aggression. The Star of the West was attempting to resupply which everyone was clearly aware was being seen as a hostile act by South Carolina.

Dawna wrote:

To avoid "hasty action so as to gain time for the administration to get in working order, and it's policy to be understood," Lincoln consulted with General Scott who advised him that " it would require a naval expedition, 5000 regular troops and 20,000 volunteer soldiers to reinforce the fort." Since these could not be produced, surrender was "merely a question of time."

The Sumter crisis was the topic of discussion at a Cabinet meeting on March 9th, and it was concluded that the fort must be surrendered. Lincoln was not willing at that point to surrender Fort Sumter and I have to ask, if President Lincoln had done so, would this have been no different than surrendering the Union...possibly an act of treason? Did the President not have the right to maintain the authority of the Government?

Lincoln was not about to surrender Sumter. Why? To do so would have been making a concession, and letting loose his grasp on the highly coveted import and export taxes the Federals received from the South.

Had Lincoln evacuated Sumter, as the governor of South Carolina offered many times granting safe passage to all Union troops inside, no shot would have been fired. It has been theorized, and I fully believe, that Lincoln left those men there to be the sacrifice to rally the gov't & the North to his call for war. }}

No Union casualties were suffered after the bombardment of Sumter, unless you include the one mule that died. So why did Lincoln find it necessary to amass an army of invasion. Peaceful settlement could have still been reached.

Dawna wrote:

With the advice of the majority of the cabinet, Lincoln directed Welles and Cameron to have an expedition reinforce Fort Sumter by April 6th. This decision was not lightly reached and was borne with considerable angst. I don't believe that these are the actions of a blood-thirsty Presidenet who was looking for war.

Oh no? Who is to say how Lincoln felt or what he and his cabinet discussed? When a warning has gone out not to attempt to resupply or rearm a fort, why would you send warships (yes, warships) and supplies to said fort?

Dawna wrote:

Also on April 6th, Lincoln sent Robert Chew to Charleston with orders to inform Governor Pickens that "an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only; and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice." With a reasonable message such as this Thea, how is there even the slightest possibility that Major Anderson could be secretly reinforced?


Trust was a big issue here. How could South Carolina know for sure that arms or munitions were not secreted in casks or crates? Is it not possible that men offloading supplies from the ship might not stay within the fort as physical reinforcements? I am not saying these things were a certainty, but they were a cause for concern for South Carolina.

Dawna wrote:

In the weeks and events leading up to the firing on Fort Sumter, I'm inclined to believe that President Lincoln's intent was peaceable throughout the crisis and that he did not seek to provoke war. Between Lincoln's inauguration and the firing on Fort Sumter, he vowed not to be the first to shed blood, but he also vowed not to surrender the forts. South Caroline knew this, so the question remains "who provoked who?"

Peaceful settlement? Lincoln? You do know that he turned away many delegates sent by South Carolina don't you? He refused to evacuate or order the abandonment of Sumter. He attempted resupply of the fort when he knew that such an event would be seen as an act of hostility.

Was Lincoln a peace seeking president or a man manipulating South Carolina into firing the first shot to give him the excuse to invade the South to force their return to the Union? }

[bokscar]

The Fort was a Federal possession on federal land, S.C. had no claim on either. Since the South was not out of the Union, there was no need to talk to persons, claiming to be the representatives of some entity that did not exist. In fact, knowing the south would instantly use Lincoln's meeting with them as proof that such an entity did exist, is it any wonder Lincoln refused meeting them officially?
Lincoln had publicly said that the only way war could result would be it the South started it. He was proven right.
Lincoln had an obligation to preserve and protect the Constitution, S.C. (and the South)was under no obligation to violate that Constitution.
As has been pointed out before, questions concerning the interpretation of the Constitution is provided for in that document.
The South preferred to settle the question by the sword. It's challenge was accepted and the question was settled.

Dawna,

Regarding Ft Sumter..For a reaction of the man at the Fort we see Anderson was less than happy about the nature of the help he was to receive.

Major Anderson, in a letter to Colonel Thomas, Adjutant-General, United States Army, expressed his concern.
"I had the honor to receive, by yesterday's mail, the letter of the Honorable Secretary of War, dated April 4th, and confess that what he there states surprises me greatly - following, as it does, and contradicting so positively, the assurance Mr. Crawford telegraphed he was "authorized" to make. I trust that this matter will be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, when the South has been erroneously informed that none such would be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout the country......I ought to have been informed that this expedition [to resupply the fort] was to come. Colonel Lamon's remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out. ...
We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in this war, which I see is to be thus commenced." (April 8, 1861)

Anderson wrote the letter on the same day South Carolina's governor was informed about the coming of the “resupply” mission, the day after Anderson himself learned of the mission.


Then the Fox letter itself....Lincoln to Fox
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."

Pretty simple and clear-cut to me. Especially in light of Anderson's reaction. And accurate prediction.


If Lincoln did not carefully orchestrate the war then Lincoln reminds me of a man falling off a skyscraper and waving to the people in the windows as he falls past and saying to them cheerfully "So far, so good."


YMOS
tommy



(Message edited by aphillbilly on August 27, 2004)

Hinkle,

I just have to ask, even though I doubt it will matter. How exactly did the State of South Carolina violate the Constitution. Specifically and legally. I'm not interested in your opinion in this query but would you provide the part in the Constitution that forbids secession? Specifically.
If it was not an existing right, then why did it have to be taken away after the war?
You keep mentioning it but I've yet to see you provide anything beyond your personal opinions. That actually is completely all fine and good but as it has been pointed out many times on the boards, opinions are not facts. To declare unequivocally an opinion in the manner of a fact is not very conducive. It helps if you actually provide a source to back it up. From that point you can have some footing for debate and discussion. Otherwise .....what is the point?
As to Lincoln's 'obligation' I would also be interested where his obligation is defined that indicated he was obligated to violate the constitution and exceed executive powers.
As pointed out by Lincoln, Anderson and all involved. Only a fool would have deigned to believe any other outcome would have followed the treachery of Lincoln and his administration’s actions regarding Sumter. I'd be interested in the documentation stating Lincoln had those rights. You, yourself seem to believe if a right is not specifically stated in the Constitution, it doesn't exist. It also appears clear that Lincoln was the one wishing to settle the issue by the sword. Last I heard Machiavellian ideology wasn’t part of the Constitution either.

This might come as a surprise but according to my father his cousin in Hawaii married a fellow whose ancestors are Daniel Boone and Robert Todd Lincoln. Kinda surprising to find information like this. So in all actuality his side of the family married into the Boone and Lincoln bloodline.

I'll have to find the site where this info is stored.