How Did Tariffs Work?

[MobileBoy]

Cash,

Wrong again. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was not a violation of the Constitution, since the Constitution clearly gives the US Government the power to suspend the privilege of the writ and does not claim that power belongs to only one branch of the government.
The clause of the constitution, which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, is in the 9th section of the first article. This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department. It begins by providing "that all legislative powers therein granted, shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives." And after prescribing the manner in which these two branches of the legislative department shall be chosen, it proceeds to enumerate specifically the legislative powers which it thereby grants [and legislative powers which it expressly prohibits]; and at the conclusion of this specification, a clause is inserted giving congress "the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Please tell me how you can possibly conclude from that that the President has the power to suspend habeus corpus.You sure love to interprate the constitution liberally it’s a wonder you conclude secession is illegal.Your losing credibility.



Those who actually understand what the Constitution and the law says about this will know that no congressional consent was needed for an invasion in any case, since the President has the constituitonal authority to put down rebellions.
Sure he could put down rebellions and the President could hug his wife but the issue is what he did illegally. It is clear that only Congress can raise an army I suggest you learn the Constitution.Lincoln could legally call up militia but he had no authority to call for 75,000 volunteers or raise an army.Only Congress can legally do that.I don’t know who you consider those who actually understand considering I’ve never heard that this action of Lincoln’s was constitutional. I’ve heard descent excuses as to why Lincoln did what he did but I’ve never heard it called legal.That’s a new one.Your losing even more credibility.

You say that is perfectly legal for Lincoln to call for a blockade under the Constituion. Again please show me how this is legal.War needed to be declared by Congress to issue a blockade.You now have no credibility remaining.

This was said by two Lincoln admirers.Does the constitution provide for dictators?
"Lincoln’s amazing disregard for the Constitution," Rossiter wrote, "was considered by nobody as legal." "Never had the power of a dictator fallen into safer and nobler hands," James Ford Rhodes wrote in his History of the United States.
And James G. Randall wrote in Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln that "If Lincoln was a dictator, it must be admitted that he was a benevolent dictator." Why it "must be" was not explained.

[cash]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Wrong again. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was not a violation of the Constitution, since the Constitution clearly gives the US Government the power to suspend the privilege of the writ and does not claim that power belongs to only one branch of the government.
---
The clause of the constitution, which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, is in the 9th section of the first article. This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department.

I see you haven't read it very carefully. Most of Article I does deal with the Legislative Branch; however, not all of it.

Section 8 deals with the powers of Congress.
Section 9 deals with restrictions on the United States. In his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story called this section, "Prohibitions on the United States." [See Vol. III, Chapter XXXIII] Clause 1 is a prohibition specific to Congress, so it specifically states "by the Congress." Clause 2 has no specific designation. Clause 7, for example, states, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." This quite obviously falls mostly on the Executive Branch, which contains the Treasury Department, who makes the regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money, and which executes the laws and spends the money Congress appropriates.
Section 10 deals with restrictions on the States, not with Congress. Note each clause begins with "No State shall ... "

How can anyone who has actually read this article claim that it deals solely with the Legislative Branch?

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Those who actually understand what the Constitution and the law says about this will know that no congressional consent was needed for an invasion in any case, since the President has the constituitonal authority to put down rebellions.
---
Sure he could put down rebellions and the President could hug his wife but the issue is what he did illegally.

No, he didn't.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

It is clear that only Congress can raise an army I suggest you learn the Constitution.

I appear to know it far better than you.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Lincoln could legally call up militia but he had no authority to call for 75,000 volunteers or raise an army.Only Congress can legally do that.

The 75,000 volunteers were militia. The Militia Act of 1795 gave the President the express authority to call out the militia, thus raising a volunteer army. You apparently are confused about this. The Regular Army already existed. Lincoln didn't raise a regular army. The volunteers were called up in strict accordance with the Militia Act of 1795.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

I don’t know who you consider those who actually understand considering I’ve never heard that this action of Lincoln’s was constitutional.

Then you should stop reading neoconfederate propaganda and start reading actual history.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

I’ve heard descent excuses as to why Lincoln did what he did but I’ve never heard it called legal.That’s a new one.Your losing even more credibility.

Since you're bringing up credibility, between us there is one person who knows what he's talking about on this issue, and he's not living in Alabama. You really need to stay away from the neoconfederate propaganda and start reading some real history books.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

You say that is perfectly legal for Lincoln to call for a blockade under the Constituion. Again please show me how this is legal.War needed to be declared by Congress to issue a blockade.

Wrong. Ever hear of the United States Supreme Court? They specifically ruled on this and ruled his actions to be entirely constitutional.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

You now have no credibility remaining.

Only to those who have no understanding of the history, the law, or the Constitution. I'll stick with the US Supreme Court on this.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

This was said by two Lincoln admirers.Does the constitution provide for dictators?
"Lincoln’s amazing disregard for the Constitution," Rossiter wrote, "was considered by nobody as legal." "Never had the power of a dictator fallen into safer and nobler hands," James Ford Rhodes wrote in his History of the United States.
And James G. Randall wrote in Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln that "If Lincoln was a dictator, it must be admitted that he was a benevolent dictator." Why it "must be" was not explained.

And you've never read any of them or else you would have recognized DiLorenzo, from whom the above was plagiarized [http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo32.html], took them out of context to make it appear they were saying something they weren't. Randall, for instance, said specifically Lincoln was not a dictator.

Regards,
Cash

[cedarstripper]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Consider this little tidbit from the pro-Lincoln New York Evening Post, March 2, 1861 edition

Perhaps this demonstrates how any particular editorial from a newspaper need neither be accurate, reasonable, or insightful. It is just an editorial. I hate to think of the mess someone would have 100 years from now trying to determine the public's opinion on abortion, by relying on selected editorials. All depends whether you select Phyllis Shafly and Alan Keyes or Pat Ireland. Same subject, same time frame, yet opposing attitudes.

"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted.

The only loss of tariff collections that would occur would be the relatively minor amount previously collected directly at southern ports (which Cash has shown you didn't amount to diddly) as well as the imports that were cleared through Customs in a northern port and subsequently worked their way South in the marketplace. I see no reason to believe that the loss of this revenue was not probably equally offset by the expenditures the federal government would no longer have to spend in the South. And if money were the bottom line for the Union, then certainly fighting a very expensive war could not be thought a cost-effective way to recover any balance.

If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed

If a new US (sans the CS) did not create new US Ports of Entry along its new border, but instead lets goods enter (smuggled) without enforcing its tariff laws, then Yes, revenue laws would be essentially repealed. But there is nothing to indicate that any such thing would follow. Enforcing tariff laws between an independent CS and the US would be no different than enforcing tariff laws between the US and Canada or Mexico.

the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.

The writer has quite a case of Chickenlittleitis. In fact, the US did lose the tariff revenues, both direct and indirect, of the confederacy, and none of the above happened.

"What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner?

I don’t why it is thought that if the CS had a lower tariff rate, or even no tariff rate at all, that foreign imports would then ship to the US market through slave state ports to capitalize on the cheaper rate, thus starving the US Treasury and ruining the US shipping industry. Those goods could not enter the US market until cleared through US Customs. Any foreign freight destined for US merchants would not pay the CS tariff anyway, but pay the US tariff after being transhipped. The reverse is also true for freight destined for southern consumers that first lands in a northern port. If imported goods could escape duties by virtue of the first port they docked in, then the British would have shipped to the US via Canada and imported duty-free.

The bulk of imported goods entered through major northern ports because the South lacked the density of customers to consistently make direct trade of exclusively European imports possible. Considering the comparable size of the market in the free states and the irrelevance of the tariff rate, it is reasonable to assume that import traffic would have been in the main little changed.

A southern trend that held far more potential for damage to northern commerce, especially that of New England, was a hatred driven resolve of the slave states to intentionally seek commercial independence from them, refusing to buy their products or employing their services. Of course, secession was not necessary to accomplish that goal.


Cedarstripper

[ole]

Cedarstripper:

I believe the "chickenlittle" statement is an excerpt. IIRC the panic-stricken individual was lamenting that if the seceding states could avoid paying customs, then every state could. -- leading to a government without revenue.

A southern trend that held far more potential for damage to northern commerce, especially that of New England, was a hatred driven resolve of the slave states to intentionally seek commercial independence from them, refusing to buy their products or employing their services. Of course, secession was not necessary to accomplish that goal.

The agrarian economy so stubbornly held by the planters was inextricably entwined with that of the north. They relied heavily on northern manufactures for such mundane goods as shoes, fabrics, wooden buckets and brooms -- not to mention financing, brokering and shipping. Oh yes, the threat for potential harm was there, but I wonder how many years it would have taken for them to fully implement such a plan -- and would they have had the resolve to wait that long while filling their needs with European imports and spending what little treasure they had on infrastructure.

Ole

[MobileBoy]

Cash,
I never said that I haven't read Dilorenzo.I did a quick google search about the blockade and couldn't find anything supporing or condemning it constitutionally.In your own words please explain me to the blockade controversy.
You're stretching things a bit aren't you calling 75,000 volunteers Lincoln asked for militia.Were they active members of the state militia?No they weren't so calling them militia is inaccurate and he did raise an army.
You seem to have agreed or at least not countered that Lincoln had no power to suspend habeus corpus after your original claim that he did.
There are neo-Confederate sources out their but you're neo-Union so you're at the other end of the spectrum in my opinion.I respect your intelligence greatly but you seem to be as radical as Dolorenzo just on opposite sides.Both of you make good points but neither of you are really fair or accurate in your assessment of things in my humble opinion.Unfortunately there are very few poeple in the middle making continued learning challenging.I fear not many poeple are after the truth but bent up in radically attacking the other position and defending their own even when they're wrong.Oh well this is politics we're talking about so to expect everyone to agree is I guess silly.
Cedarstripper,
Thanks for your response to the article from the Northern newspaper.There were many other similar articles throughout the North so I just wondered if that was common sentiment.I don't think the North would have fallen apart without the Confederacy and agree in principle with what you're saying.My only disagreement would be that the Confederate tarrif was clearly lower.I've always had the belief that the media shapes the opinion of the masses.That was why I found the article and those echoing it interesting.I'm not saying Cash had the wrong figures because he probably was right but other sources report different amounts.Best I can tell there is no way of knowing for certain what the figures were.

[cedarstripper]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

I fear not many poeple are after the truth but bent up in radically attacking the other position and defending their own even when they're wrong.

That is undoubtedly true for some, but I think it an unfortunate summary for most. What value is there in persueing falsehoods and disinformation? I, for one, am interested in the truth.

My only disagreement would be that the Confederate tarrif was clearly lower.

The confederate tariff is entirely irrelevant to imports into the US, as would be a Canadian tariff. Foreign goods entering the US market through New Orleans, Charleston, or any other CS Port of Entry would not pay the CS tariff, but instead pay the US tariff when they later entered through the US Port of Entry. Similarly, foreign goods destined for the CS market could dock in New York Harbor or any other US port and then, usually mixed with US goods, tranship to the CS and pay the CS tariff upon entering through CS Customs. They would not pay a US tariff. Even goods entered through US Customs and re-exported to the CS would receive a drawback on the tariff paid, so I hope you can see that the rates of the CS would have no effect on drawing trade or shipping away from the established routes where natural commerce evolved it.

There IS a problem however for both US and CS buyers of goods from each other's sections. What domestic commerce that once flowed duty-free between sections now hits a new border and is burdened with an import tariff. Since the major import out of the South to the North was cotton, and cotton was on the free list, this would not have greatly affected the tax load of the US citizen. However, the same is not true for the CS citizen who bought a wide variety of articles from the US. His products are now taxed with a CS tariff where before there was none. Ultimately, Southerners were liable to pay more in taxes in the CS than in the US, unless reciprocity treaties were established.

A lower tariff in the CS DID offer one certain problem for the US - it was an incentive for more states, probably from the West, to secede and join the CSA in order to gain the benefits, if any, from the rate differences. Personally, I doubt they would open their land to slavery to reap such small benefits. If you divide the number of US families into the total revenue from Customs, you get something around $10 /family/year. The average westerner was sure to account for less than the average in dutiable imports, so I think it unlikely that for the $2-$3 he might save, he would risk having to compete with large slaveholders, putting himself on the same footing as yeoman farmers in Alabama.

the I've always had the belief that the media shapes the opinion of the masses.That was why I found the article and those echoing it interesting.

I don't dismiss their value as opinion, but I personally don't care to use them to establish fact or determine the pulse of an entire geographic region. How many opposite opinions do you suppose there might have been published which have not been selected for your reading?

I'm not saying Cash had the wrong figures because he probably was right but other sources report different amounts.Best I can tell there is no way of knowing for certain what the figures were.

Sure we can know for certain. This wasn't pre-historic times. These amounts were all recorded and reported to the dollar to the US Treasury. It's all a matter of what type of sources you want to rely on for your information.

Cedarstripper

[cash]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

I did a quick google search about the blockade and couldn't find anything supporing or condemning it constitutionally.In your own words please explain me to the blockade controversy.

You seem to have your mind already made up, but I'll give it a shot.

The Lincoln Administration had talks with the British Ambassador, Lord Lyons, concerning their plan to close the southern ports. Lord Lyons said that if they closed the ports it would probably lead to conflict, as British ships would no doubt defy the closure and US Navy ships would then have to seize them. He suggested a blockade, whereby US Navy ships would not seize British ships but instead would turn them away, as a means to avoid conflict with England. He said the British would respect a blockade but not a closure. This is outlined in Dean Mahin's book, One War at a Time.

There were, of course, blockade runners, and ships captured inside the blockade zone were subject to seizure. Some of these ships were seized and declared prizes by Federal courts, then their cargo sold and the profits given to the crews of the Navy ships that had seized them. The owners of some of these vessels appealed their seizures. In 1862, several of these cases made their way to the US Supreme Court. These cases involved, the brig "Amy Warwick," the schooner "Crenshaw," the barque "Hiawatha," and the schooner "Brilliante." The Court consolidated these cases into one, known collectively as "The Prize Cases." One of the arguments used on their behalf was your claim that the President didn't have the constitutional authority to declare a blockade.

The following is a lengthy excerpt from the Court's ruling in this matter. The bottomline is: "the President had a right, jure belli, to institute a blockade of ports in possession of the States in rebellion, which neutrals are bound to regard."

[begin quote]
By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare war against a State, or any number of States, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either again t a foreign nation or a domestic State. But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States.

If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force. He does not initiate the war, but is bound to accept the challenge without waiting for any special legislative authority. And whether the hostile party be a foreign invader, or States organized in rebellion, it is none the less a war, although the declaration of it be 'unilateral.' Lord Stowell (1 Dodson, 247) observes, 'It is not the less a war on that account, for war may exist without a declaration on either side. It is so laid down by the best writers on the law of nations. A declaration of war by one country only, is not a mere challenge to be accepted or refused at pleasure by the other.

The battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma had been fought before the passage of the Act of Congress of May 13th, 1846, which recognized 'a state of war as existing by the act of the Republic of Mexico.' This act not only provided for the future prosecution of the war, but was itself a vindication and ratification of the Act of the President in accepting the challenge without a previous formal declaration of war by Congress.

This greatest of civil wars was not gradually developed by popular commotion, tumultuous assemblies, or local unorganized insurrections. However long may have been its previous conception, it nevertheless sprung forth suddenly from the parent brain, a Minerva in the full panoply of war. The President was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name; and no name given to it by him or them could change the fact.

It is not the less a civil war, with belligerent parties in hostile array, because it may be called an 'insurrection' by one side, and the insurgents be considered as rebels or traitors. It is not necessary that the independence of the revolted province or State be acknowledged in order to constitute it a party belligerent in a war according to the law of nations. Foreign nations acknowledge it as war by a declaration of neutrality. The condition of neutrality cannot exist unless there be two belligerent parties. In the case of the Santissima Trinidad, (7 Wheaton, 337,) this Court say: 'The Government of the United States has recognized the existence of a civil war between Spain and her colonies, and has avowed her determination to remain neutral between the parties. Each party is therefore deemed by us a belligerent nation, having, so far as concerns us, the sovereign rights of war.' (See also 3 Binn., 252.)

As soon as the news of the attack on Fort Sumter, and the organization of a government by the seceding States, assuming to act as belligerents, could become known in Europe, to wit, on the 13th of May, 1861, the Queen of England issued her proclamation of neutrality, 'recognizing hostilities as existing between the Government of the United States of American and certain States styling themselves the Confederate States of America.' This was immediately followed by similar declarations or silent acquiescence by other nations.

After such an official recognition by the sovereign, a citizen of a foreign State is estopped to deny the existence of a war with all its consequences as regards neutrals. They cannot ask a Court to affect a technical ignorance of the existence of a war, which all the world acknowledges to be the greatest civil war known in the history of the human race, and thus cripple the arm of the Government and paralyze its power by subtle definitions and ingenious sophisms.

The law of nations is also called the law of nature; it is founded on the common consent as well as the common sense of the world. It contains no such anomalous doctrine as that which this Court are now for the first time desired to pronounce, to wit: That insurgents who have risen in rebellion against their sovereign, expelled her Courts, established a revolutionary government, organized armies, and commenced hostilities, are not enemies because they are traitors; and a war levied on the Government by traitors, in order to dismember and destroy it, is not a war because it is an 'insurrection.'

Whether the President in fulfilling his duties, as Commander-in-chief, in suppressing an insurrection, has met with such armed hostile resistance, and a civil war of such alarming proportions as will compel him to accord to them the character of belligerents, is a question to be decided by him, and this Court must be governed by the decisions and acts of the political department of the Government to which this power was entrusted. 'He must determine what degree of force the crisis demands.' The proclamation of blockade is itself official and conclusive evidence to the Court that a state of war existed which demanded and authorized a recourse to such a measure, under the circumstances peculiar to the case.

The correspondence of Lord Lyons with the Secretary of State admits the fact and concludes the question.

If it were necessary to the technical existence of a war, that it should have a legislative sanction, we find it in almost every act passed at the extraordinary session of the Legislature of 1861, which was wholly employed in enacting laws to enable the Government to prosecute the war with vigor and efficiency. And finally, in 1861, we find Congress 'ex majore cautela' and in anticipation of such astute objections, passing an act 'approving, legalizing, and making valid all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President, &c., as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.' Without admitting that such an act was necessary under the circumstances, it is plain that if the President had in any manner assumed powers which it was necessary should have the authority or sanction of Congress, that on the well known principle of law, 'omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur et mandato equiparatur,' this ratification has operated to perfectly cure the defect. In the case of Brown vs. United States, (8 Cr., 131, 132, 133,) Mr. Justice Story treats of this subject, and cites numerous authorities to which we may refer to prove this position, and concludes, 'I am perfectly satisfied that no subject can commence hostilities or capture property of an enemy, when the sovereign has prohibited it. But suppose he did, I would ask if the sovereign may not ratify his proceedings, and thus by a retroactive operation give validity to them?'

Although Mr. Justice Story dissented from the majority of the Court on the whole case, the doctrine stated by him on this point is correct and fully substantiated by authority.

The objection made to this act of ratification, that it is ex post facto, and therefore unconstitutional and void, might possibly have some weight on the trial of an indictment in a criminal Court. But precedents from that source cannot be received as authoritative in a tribunal administering public and international law.

On this first question therefore we are of the opinion that the President had a right, jure belli, to institute a blockade of ports in possession of the States in rebellion, which neutrals are bound to regard.
[end quote] [67 U.S. 635, 668-671]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

You're stretching things a bit aren't you calling 75,000 volunteers Lincoln asked for militia.

Not at all, because that's exactly what they were.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Were they active members of the state militia?

Some were, but some were what is known as "unorganized militia."

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

No they weren't so calling them militia is inaccurate and he did raise an army.

No, you're wrong. They were indeed militia. By law, every able-bodied male of military age was a member of the unorganized militia. By the way, this law is still in effect.

It's obvious you haven't bothered to read Lincoln's Proclamation.

Here's the relevant excerpt:

"Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed." [Statutes at Large, Vol. 12, p. 1258]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

You seem to have agreed or at least not countered that Lincoln had no power to suspend habeus corpus after your original claim that he did.

I suggest you read my post again, because you are way off. I showed you where you were wrong. Article I deals with more than just the Legislative Branch, and Section 9 deals with prohibitions on the United States government, not just on Congress.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Best I can tell there is no way of knowing for certain what the figures were.

Wrong again. We know the exact figures because they were kept with great care.

Regards,
Cash

[cash]

Here's the actual explanation of Lord Lyons' advice to Lincoln and Seward from Mahin's book.

Lincoln and Seward first considered closing the ports and brought this up to Lord Lyons, the British Minister to the United States on 25 Mar 1861. "Lyons responded that this plan would have grave consequences:

" 'If the United States determined to stop by force so important a commerce as that of Great Britain with the cotton-growing States, I could not answer for what might happen. ... It was ... a matter of the greatest consequence to England to produce cheap cotton. ... If ... British ships were to be ... excluded from the Southern Ports, and immense pressure would be put upon Her Majesty's Government to use all the means in their power to open these ports.'

"Lincoln's decision to proclaim a blockade was undoubtedly influenced by Lyons's opinion--which he also expressed to Lord Russell on April 15--that a Union blockade of Southern ports under international law would be more acceptable to the British government and less hazardous for the United States than the proposal to 'close the ports':

" 'A regular blockade would be less objectionable than ... closing the Southern Ports as ports of entry, or attempting to collect duties for the U.S. by shops stationed off them. The rules of a blockade are to a great extent determined and known. ... But if the U.S. are to be permitted to seize any ship of ours wherever they can find her within their jurisdiction on the plea that by going to a Southern port she has violated the U.S. customs laws, our commerce will be exposed to vexations beyond bearing, and all kinds of new and doubtful questions will be raised. ... It would certainly justify Great Britain and France in recognizing the Southern Confederacy and sending their fleets to force the U.S. to treat British and French vessels as neutrals in conformity with the laws of nations.'" [Dean B. Mahin, One War at a Time: The International Dimensions of the American Civil War, pp. 45-46]

Regards,
Cash

[ole]

It is not the less a war on that account, for war may exist without a declaration on either side. It is so laid down by the best writers on the law of nations. A declaration of war by one country only, is not a mere challenge to be accepted or refused at pleasure by the other.

Thanks, Cash, for taking the time to post that opinion. The above excerpt says a mouthful. Now, if we only had as definitive a statement concerning which action was the declaration: Lincoln's attempt to resupply, or Davis's determination to open fire.

Ole

[MobileBoy]

Cash,
Is your medicine not working right anymore?Right all 75,000 were quote unorganized militia.Please sell ocean front property in Iowa to someone else I'm not buying.Do you not recall you and I discussing this before?You said then quote it was beyond Lincoln's constitutional authority but you saw it as no harm no foul.What happened in a week for you to have a different position?If you need me to post your previous remarks on the issue I'd be happy to do so.

Lincoln's act of expanding the regular army beyond its congressionally mandated limit was beyond his constitutional authority, done in anticipation of congressional approval-Cash

Right and now all of a sudden they were unorganized militia.