Was War Necessary After Secession?

[unionblue]

Hal,

May I ask a question? What was President Jackson's use of the Force Bill during the Nullification Crisis? Was this not a threat, a very real one, to use force to ensure State complience with Federal will?

Unionblue

[hawglips]

Nullification is a horse of a different color.

And Jackson was a pretty radical guy. He engaged in brawls, and even reportedly killed a man in a duel for casting a slur at his wife. His threat to hang Calhoun doesn't make him look any better. He even proposed eliminating the Electoral College. And he ignored the Supreme Court's ruling involving the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands -- "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!". He obviously placed the doctrine of might makes right over that of liberty and rule of law.

I'm reminded of my favorite Calhoun quote. In a toast at a Democratic banquet, Jackson made a toast at Calhoun saying, "Our Federal Union-it must be preserved." Calhoun looked at Jackson and responded with a toast of his own -- "The Union-next to our liberty most dear."

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

I tend to disagree that nullification is a horse of a different color. The principle of a State defying the Federal Government is still there. And in spite of the fact that Jackson was a very colorful President, his threat of action against South Carolina by enforcement of the Force Bill, does this not in your opinion represent another President, other than Lincoln, that would have used force to make a State comply to the will of the Federal Government?

And I too, am reminded of what Jackson said after the nullification crisis was resolved. He told friends now to beware as now that the tariff issue was resolved with the South, that slavery would be the next excuse to try and withdraw from the Union.

Some sites on nullification. Jackson's proclamation at:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/pr...ons/jack01.htm

And a site with commentary on the subject.

http://college.hmco.com/history/read...llificatio.htm

And, most interesting of all, Jackson's farewell address.

http://www.reformation.org/jackson_f...l_message.html

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on December 12, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on December 13, 2003)

[hawglips]

"And I too, am reminded of what Jackson said after the nullification crisis was resolved. He told friends now to beware as now that the tariff issue was resolved with the South, that slavery would be the next excuse to try and withdraw from the Union."

Neil, can you share that with us?

It certainly appears that every time things weren't going their way, or there was a shift of power in the general government, somebody talked about secession.

There is a common thread throughout each of these.

Hal




(Message edited by hawglips on December 16, 2003)

[unionblue]

Hal,

I read the statement President Jackson made from a book I have at home. I'll dig it out for you as I am now at work and don't have it here.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Hal,

Here is what President Andrew Jackson said at the end of the nullification crisis. It is taken from the book, The Road To Disunion, by William W. Freehling. The quotes are taken from a letter from Jackson to John Crawford, April 9, 1833, Correspondence of Jackson, 5: 56.

"Nullification is dead," rejoiced President Andrew Jackson in 1833, but Nullifiers "intend to blow up a storm on the subject of the slavery question." Despite knowing Northerners have no antislavery views, Calhoun and fellow fanatics "will try to arouse the southern people on this false tail. These men would do any act to destroy the Union."

And Hal, I also have discovered that besides President's Jackson and Lincoln, President Zachary Taylor threatened the use of Federal force when visted by Robert Toombs and Alexander H. Stephens when they threatened to support Texas secessionts in July of 1850.

It was reported during this meeting that Taylor (like Andrew Jackson before him) was determined to see the laws executed and Texan lawlessness suppressed, and if necessary would take command of the Army himself. If secessionists 'were taken in rebellion against the Union he would hang them with less reluctance than he had hanged deserters and spies in Mexico'. Southern demands were impertinent, 'intolerable and revolutionary'. Toombs left in no doubt about the President's bellicose intentions. 'The worst of it is,' Toombs admitted, 'he will do it.'

The above is from the book, The Origins Of The American Civil War, by Brian Holden Reid.

What I find amazing about this board and my research in answering questions from other members during debates such as this, is how much I base my answer on historical Southern sources. In my research to answer you Hal concerning Lincoln being the only President to resort to force over the question of secession, I find two previous Southern Presidents, slave holders in fact, who threatened the use of force when faced with the threat of secession (Jackson and Taylor). In no uncertain terms, both these Presidents said they had no problem with the idea of sending Federal forces into action against any and all who threatened secession from the Union. What a great board!

YMOS,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on December 17, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on December 18, 2003)

[hawglips]

Well, that was not quite "He told friends now to beware as now that the tariff issue was resolved with the South, that slavery would be the next excuse to try and withdraw from the Union...." but thank you. It is nice to have someone on here who will look this stuff up when requested! I appreciate it.

Neil, I am not sure that I ever said Lincoln was the "only president to resort to force over the question of secession."

If you have time, and in order to complete your research on presidents' reaction to secessionist threats, please see what the presidents' reactions were to the secession threats of 1803, 1814 and 1844.

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

I guess I should have said 'nullification was resolved with the South, that slavery would be the next excuse to try and withdraw from the Union.'

But that is only if you believe that the tariff was anything of an issue after Andy and John had words over the issue in 1832! I think my overall statement was on the mark. The South tried one way of defying Federal authority, was threatened with force by a Southern President and backed down. The next thing on the list to try and defy the government over would be slavery.

And what you said about Lincoln was, "But my point is that the decision to militarily force it on the states was his alone." Now, when did South Carolina secede? When did Lincoln call up military forces? I know something happened between those two dates, but what the heck was it? Something about seizure of property, troops, ships, mints, officers and elected representatives violating their oaths? And something about some pesky fort, as I recall. I did stumble across the following, though:

I fear if S[outh] C[arolina] and some of the other states are hurrying our whole country into civil war. I fear if S.C. takes Fort Sumter, <u>by force</u>, and gives the first shot, then the <u>South</u> will commence the war, and if there is any war, I want the North to have all the blame."

The above is from Mildred Sayre to Edmund Ruffin, 4 February 1861.

And just what were President Lincoln's options, Hal? Here is a man charged by the Constitution to a certain course of action. Short of letting the states in rebellion go their way, what were his options in your opinion?

I gather that they were few and limited, based on the views of another great Southerner, Alexander H. Stephens, given below, taken from the book <u>The Origins Of The American Civil War</u> by Brian Holden Reid:

"Asked after the Baltimore convention what he thought of affairs, he replied, "why that men will be cutting one another's throats in a little while. In less than twelve months we shall be in a war, and that the bloodiest in history." Here was striking evidence that whatever claims would be made later, and not least by Stephens himself in A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States (1868), the argument that in 1860-61 secession could be viewed with equanimity as merely a constitutional expedient was not convincing. The act of secession by an individual state, or collection of states, could never be regarded as simply an exercise in constitutional rights -- a legalistic, clinical execution of a consitutional mechanism divorced from the political and social environment. The decision to secede from the Union was a political decision <u>pregnant with disruption and civil war from the outset."</u>

I will research the President's and dates you have posted above and get back to you shortly. Take care and have a Merry Christmas, OK?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on December 24, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on December 24, 2003)

[unionblue]

Hal,

I have done a VERY rapid overview of the dates you have given me in which Northern states contemplated secession (1803, 1814, and 1844).

1803 seems to be the one concerning NY &amp; MA talking about secession over the Louisiana Purchase. Nothing comes of such talk as the majority of the people in the country support the President's decesion to buy the huge territory.

1814 concerns the Hartford Convention at which a gathering of New England states considered secession over the hardships of the War of 1812, but then just decided to issue a proclamation of sorts instead of taking ANY action like secession. Here are some web sites with some views on the convention:

http://www.ctheritage.org/encycloped...8/hartconv.htm

And one with a newspaper article about the convention that was none too kind (click on the large option to view the actual newspaper article in its entirety):

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin...d%20Convention

And finally, we have 1844 where again Northern states talk and threaten secession about the admission of Texas as a State, but do nothing to implement it.

The BIG difference I can make from the above and all the other times is no one went any further than talk when it came to the subject of secession and in almost each case, the South overall opposed the idea.

I wonder why none of the Northern states pursued the subject of secession? Any thoughts on that one Hal?

I will follow this up with more research for a more in depth, concise answer.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on December 24, 2003)

[hawglips]

And what you said about Lincoln was, "But my point is that the decision to militarily force it on the states was his alone." Now, when did South Carolina secede? When did Lincoln call up military forces? I know something happened between those two dates, but what the heck was it? Something about seizure of property, troops, ships, mints, officers and elected representatives violating their oaths? And something about some pesky fort, as I recall.

Lest in overzealousness we squeeze a shoe where it does not so nicely fit, perhaps we should also consider the other foot.

Secretary of State William Seward, during a Cabinet meeting in the first month of the Lincoln administration, stated that "[t]he attempt to reinforce Sumter will provoke an attack and involve war. The very preparation for such an expedition will precipitate war at that point. I oppose beginning war at that point. I would advise against the expedition to Charleston. I would at once, at every cost, prepare for war at Pensacola and Texas. I would instruct Major Anderson to retire from Sumter.”

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor." ~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it. ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

"If this result follows - and follow civil war it must - the memory of ABRAHAM LINCOLN and his infatuated advisors will only be preserved with that of other destroyers to the scorned and execrated.... And if the historian who preserves the record of his fatal administration needs any motto descriptive of the president who destroyed the institutions which he swore to protect, it will probably be some such as this: Here is the record of one who feared more to have it said that he deserted his party than that he ruined the country, who had a greater solicitude for his consistency as a partisan than for his wisdom as a Statesman or his courage and virtue as a patriot, and who destroyed by his weakness the fairest experiment of man in self-government that the world ever witnessed." ~ The American Standard, New Jersey, April 12, 1861.

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

We have no doubt Mr. Lincoln wants the Cabinet at Montgomery to take the initiative by capturing the two forts in its waters, for it would give him the opportunity of throwing upon the Southern Confederacy the responsibility of commencing hostilities. But the country and posterity will hold him just as responsible as if he struck the first blow...."--- New York Herald, 6 March 1861.

"Unless Mr. Lincoln's Administration makes the first demonstration and attack, President Davis says there will be no bloodshed. With Mr. Lincoln's Administration therefore, rests the responsibility of precipitating a collision, and the fearful evils of protracted war".--- New York Herald, 7 March 1861.

I would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Hal