Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Thank you, you said more clearly what I meant to say. Still groggy from working my midnight shift.
Plus I am afraid that I am getting very weary repeating the same argument over and over again to the same old claims made over and over again. I know it's not fair to new members who bring up those claims, but I am pretty burned out on retyping the same answers once more.
Thanks for stepping in.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I have to disagree. The Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation, and they ceased to have any effect. The Articles of Confederation are historical relics now, not United States law.
The Articles as the law of the Union are no longer in force. The Union of the United States is considered to be the same under both the Articles and the Constitution. The two governments of the United States actually existed side-by-side for a while until the old affairs were wound up and the records, paperwork, offices, etc. were passed officially from one to the other.
The Constitution actually states this indirectly in Article VI: "All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation." This is not a new country assuming the debt of another country. This is the same country continuing under a different governing document.
This is what Seward's opinion in Texas v. White relates to, IMHO. He sees the "more perfect Union" of the Constitution as necessarily the "Perpetual Union" of the Articles. Either that, or he is arguing that the Convention was limited in what it could do by the "Perpetual" nature of the Articles when it created a new Union -- which would run contrary to other parts of the Constitution, such as Article VI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
The new US Congress passed laws to replace old laws from the Confederation that would still have to be in effect under the Constitution, or in some cases to recognize those laws under the Constitution. One of these was the Northwest Ordinance. On 7 Aug 1789, the First Congress passed "An Act to provide for the Government of the Territory Northwest of the River Ohio," which provided that the 1787 Northwest Ordinance would continue to be in force under the Constitution and adapted its provisions to work under the Constitution. See Statutes at Large, Vol I, pp. 50-53. The body of US Law under the Constitution begins with the Constitution and doesn't go further back. The US Statutes at Large under the Constitution don't include US statutes passed under the Articles of Confederation.
I think that is pretty much what I said. The laws of the Articles did not vanish the day the Constitution was adopted. They were still in force. The Congress then went through the code, passing new laws and resolutions to put them in compliance with changes as they saw fit, or repealing them.
The alternative is that there was a point in time, right after the Constitution went into force and before the new Congress passed legislation, where there was no national law in the US, no funding for government activity, etc. I do not think that was the case. I think you still would have been arrested for violating the law. I do not think such a condition of anarchy would have been acceptable to the Founding Fathers.
Yet he was in a fortress with heavy guns from which he could defend himself; yet he couldn't perform his intended mission from there. The guns of Sumter could be turned on him! So he evacuates to Sumter where the entire harbor can fire on him for safety? Wouldn't he have been safer if he spiked the guns of Sumter instead? It appears he needed the guns of Sumter to perform his mission. Means.
Missed something there: he left Moultrie to be safe from a land-based assault. He knew the condition of Confederate emplacements wouldn't be capable of assaulting Sumter for quite some time; whereas a land assault could be launched without warning at any time. By moving, as permitted in his orders, he avoided the immediate threat and bought time.
Quote:
Because he knew there was a war fleet being sent and he could better suppress shore batteries from Sumter when that fleet arrived - and knew this a week after the secession. Opportunity.
How could he know in December that a relief effort (ok, war fleet) would be sent in April? Lincoln himself didn't commit to it until April. And Buchanan certainly wanted nothing more than to turn over the problem to Lincoln. (Did the Star of the West have anything to do with relief?) Sounds like supposition, but I will cheerfully read your source for it.
Quote:
His move to Sumter was under war orders, and an act of war. The United States planned an attack from the start.
If you'll pardon the expression: poppycock. However, my having read nothing supporting that position, doesn't mean nothing exists. I'll await one source supporting it.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
What's your point? The Supreme Court decides what the law was at the time of the actions. So the Court's declaring secession unconstitutional means that it was unconstitutional when it was attempted by the confederate states.
Regards,
Cash
The Supreme Court decides what the law will be after an action, not before it. Your contention that the Confederates committed an offense before it was an offense is ex post facto.
Your argument fails on Constitutional grounds.
This thread wouldn't be here if I did not create it - in that regard it is my thread.
I thought he was referring to the attack - my mistake.
Hmmm. The post clearly said "moving to Sumter."
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
Now that is interesting. Anderson, ringed round with savage Southern anarchists, gets a message from the Secretary of War within a week of secession, giving him discretionary powers to go to war.
Obviously the Confederates allowed a messenger through - perhaps they delivered a telegram? Carrier pigeon.
Don Carlos Buell. Anderson didn't go to war. His orders authorized him to occupy any fort under his command with his garrison and to move from Fort Moultrie if he had tangible evidence of a plan to attack his garrison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
Yet it sounds like he had freedom of movement - to receive messages - apparently not read by the "enemy" or Sumter would have been occupied - go for boat rides in the night - yet he was in such danger that he had to go to Sumter for safety - even though CSA authorities had offered to let him leave.
You apparently haven't read any actual history books on this topic. Don Carlos Buell arrived in person. There was no message to read. And the confederates did start opening and reading Anderson's mail, though not until he was already in Fort Sumter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
Any of which demonstrate that the US government - long before - intended to fight. Motive.
Your leap to this conclusion is unfounded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
Yet he was in a fortress with heavy guns from which he could defend himself; yet he couldn't perform his intended mission from there.
Not at Fort Moultrie. If you had read any actual history books about this time period you would know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
The guns of Sumter could be turned on him! So he evacuates to Sumter where the entire harbor can fire on him for safety? Wouldn't he have been safer if he spiked the guns of Sumter instead? It appears he needed the guns of Sumter to perform his mission. Means.
Another leap to another unfounded conclusion. Fort Sumter commanded Fort Moultrie's position and Fort Moultrie was untenable. Fort Sumter was in the middle of the harbor and thus much more difficult to get to and therefore much safer.
I seriously recommend you read an actual history book about these events because the basic facts of the situation elude you.
The Supreme Court decides what the law will be after an action, not before it. Your contention that the Confederates committed an offense before it was an offense is ex post facto.
False. The Supreme Court does rule after the action, but they rule based on what the law was at the time of the action. They tell us what the law was at the time of the action. Therefore, secession was unconstitutional when attempted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
Your argument fails on Constitutional grounds.
I don't believe you understand the constitutional grounds, considering you've been misstating what the Court does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
This thread wouldn't be here if I did not create it - in that regard it is my thread.
It is a community thread. You could leave it today and as long as people were interested in posting to it, it would continue.
you need to get that Hmmm looked at - wise men never count on an opponent's mistake to win the day and neither do I
Don Carlos Buell. Anderson didn't go to war. His orders authorized him to occupy any fort under his command with his garrison and to move from Fort Moultrie if he had tangible evidence of a plan to attack his garrison.
Don Carlos Buell gets his orders from the Secretary of War
You apparently haven't read any actual history books on this topic.I assure you you are wrong, and you know you're wrong Don Carlos Buell arrived in person. which proves there was no danger to him or AndersonThere was no message to read. And the confederates did start opening and reading Anderson's mail, though not until he was already in Fort Sumter.after he demonstrated hostile intent
Your leap to this conclusion is unfounded. you should think about the Olympics yourself
Not at Fort Moultrie. If you had read any actual history books about this time period you would know that. see above
Another leap to another unfounded conclusion.see above Fort Sumter commanded Fort Moultrie's position and Fort Moultrie was untenable. Fort Sumter was in the middle of the harbor and thus much more difficult to get to more shore batteries could hit Sumter than Moultrie and therefore much safer.I seriously doubt you have ever been under artillery fire - spiking the guns of Sumter would have been far easier than moving there and eliminated the threat as well - Sumter proved as untenable as Moultrie, but Moultrie was the frying pan Sumter was the fire
I seriously recommend you read an actual history book about these events because the basic facts of the situation elude you. I find it very hard to take you seriously - been nice talking to you
Sir; would you be kind enough to broaden our minds with an example of your vast library. So far... little actual documentation... no; make that no documentation.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Don Carlos Buell gets his orders from the Secretary of War
Yes, he did. Buell was sent by Sec. of War Floyd with verbal instructions for Anderson. He gave those instructions to Anderson and then thought he should write a note so that Anderson would have them for future use (he appears to have suspected his friend Bob Anderson was being set-up to be a sacrificial lamb when things went wrong). Buell then returned to Charleston and spent the night in a hotel before catching the train the next day. He said the impressions he gathered listening to the talk in the hotel made him believe the danger to the garrison was greater than he had felt before he left Anderson.
Upon his return to Washington, Buell met with Floyd, discussed what he had seen and done in Charleston, and presented a copy of the note he had left with Anderson outlining his directions. Sec. of War Floyd wrote his endorsement on it and it went into the War Dept. files.
When the news came of Anderson's move to Sumter, Floyd exploded at a Cabinet meeting that Anderson had exceeded his authority. Another member, who also knew about the instructions, said, "No, he didn't" and called for the Buell note to be brought from the files. Floyd had to admit, in great embarassment, that yes, indeed that was his signature right there on it, and that Anderson had been acting according to the initiative granted to him in the instructions.
This was all in December of 1860. It can be easily documented and often has been. Trying to maintain anything else is only doomed to the same embarassment and failure that Floyd had to accept.
I seriously doubt you have ever been under artillery fire - spiking the guns of Sumter would have been far easier than moving there and eliminated the threat as well - Sumter proved as untenable as Moultrie, but Moultrie was the frying pan Sumter was the fire
This seems wrong in many ways.
To begin with, many of the guns were not mounted yet. Most of the large work crew at Sumter were from Maryland and secessionist sympathizers abounded in them. The Union "garrison" consisted of a single officer and 1 or 2 enlisted men who seem to have been unarmed except for the officer's pistol. Trying to spike the guns might have been quite hazardous, and might have been prevented.
It also appears you know little about Civil War era artillery, at least. Spiking does not permanently destroy a gun. It temporarily disables it. Repair requires a skilled man with tools, but it was routinely done. If everything needed was available, it might have taken a couple of hours/gun to repair. In fact, the guns Anderson spiked and burned the carriages of at Ft. Moultrie were repaired and used in the April bombardment of the Ft. Sumter, so we know the resources were available with some effort. Rebuilding the carriages was the difficult part.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
