Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Lincoln's act of raising an army was unconstituional and still is.
Lincoln's act of expanding the regular army beyond its congressionally mandated limit was beyond his constitutional authority, done in anticipation of congressional approval. The Congress ratified his action when they met in July. That was not raising an army, since the army already existed. His actions in calling up the militia, which could be construed as raising an army, were entirely legal and in accordance with the Militia Act of 1795. All those volunteer troops that came into Washington were legally mustered in and the Constitution was not violated by that action.
Cash,
So by saying beyond his constituitonal authority you mean what?That what he did was unconstitutional.Thank You friend.
__________________ "The sword is mighty, but principles laugh at swords. Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is still the truth." Regards, Ashley
Cash,
So by saying beyond his constituitonal authority you mean what?That what he did was unconstitutional.Thank You friend.
But the terminology "raising an army" is not accurate. Since Congress ratified his action, though, the constitutional checks and balances were preserved. Had Congress disapproved of his action he would have been forced to reduce the size of the army back to the prewar congressionally mandated level. Since Congress approved his actions, it's a wash. No harm, no foul.
It did pass the House of Representatives prior to secession. Had it [Morrill tariff] been allowed to come up for an up-or-down vote in the Senate prior to secession it would probably not have passed. The additional 14 votes of the seceded senators would have been enough to kill it.
After looking at the vote tally, I had always considered that the South knew they had the votes to kill the tariff bill, but it seems a little more complicated. As the vote was 25 - 14, we can assume that had the 14 Senators from the South voted no, the bill would have died. But there were also another thirteen votes not cast. They were: Gwin (CA); Dixon (CT); Bayard and Saulsbury (DE); Bright and Fitch (IN); Crittenden (KY); Kennedy (MD); Polk (MO);Thomson (NJ); Pugh (OH); Collamer (VT); and Mason (VA). Also, I believe that Wigfall and Hemphill from Texas were still in Congress, but neither of them voted, and I did not include them in the thirteen.
But for those who might think that the vote would have fallen along party lines, the chances of passing Morrill look bleaker. Of the thirteen who didn't vote, nine were Democrats, one was a Republican, one was Opposition, and two were American (know-nothing). Six votes not cast were from border states, and I think Gwin from California had said he would not support the tariff bill.
Of a possible 54 possible votes (assuming the Senators from Texas were still present), less than half were cast in favor of the tariff, with more not voting than voting against. For a bill that is now alleged to have been divisive enough to cause disunion, 28% of the Senate didn't even bother to be present for the vote.
Lincoln's orders to Fox were that if the landing were not resisted to land the provisions only. That was the sole aim of the expedition provided there was no resistance to the landing of the provisions.
Regards,
Cash
In Fox's report he vents his frustrations and let's us in on his Sumter expedition intentions thusly:
The Pawnee and Lane were both short of men, and were only intended to afford a base of operations whilst the tugs and three hundred sailors fought their way in.... I learned on the 13th instant that the Powhatan was withdrawn from duty off Charleston on the 7th instant, yet I was permitted to sail on the 9th, the Pawnee on the 9th, and the Pocahontas on the 10th, without intimation that the main portion--the fighting portion--of our expedition was taken away. In justice to itself as well as an acknowledgment of my earnest efforts, I trust the Government has sufficient reasons for putting me in the position they have placed me.
And Lincoln sheds more light the expeditions purspose in his response to Fox:
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."
Secretary Seward's warning shows that Lincoln and his cabinet were quite aware that sending such an expedition would "precipitate war," with the question being not whether to precipitate it, but WHERE it was to begin.
"[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.”
Yes, Lincoln was looking for a way to inaugurate war. His decision was to disallow secession at the point of the bayonet, with or without Sumter, with or without slavery.
In Fox's report he vents his frustrations and let's us in on his Sumter expedition intentions thusly:
The Pawnee and Lane were both short of men, and were only intended to afford a base of operations whilst the tugs and three hundred sailors fought their way in.... I learned on the 13th instant that the Powhatan was withdrawn from duty off Charleston on the 7th instant, yet I was permitted to sail on the 9th, the Pawnee on the 9th, and the Pocahontas on the 10th, without intimation that the main portion--the fighting portion--of our expedition was taken away. In justice to itself as well as an acknowledgment of my earnest efforts, I trust the Government has sufficient reasons for putting me in the position they have placed me.
Since his orders said he was to reinforce the garrison if the landing of provisions were resisted, this is not surprising at all, and conforms exactly to what I've been saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
And Lincoln sheds more light the expeditions purspose in his response to Fox:
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."
I'm sure you think it's a smoking gun, and provided you misread it I'm sure it seems that way. It's not. Nobody's ever denied that Lincoln was willing to accept a war the confederates started. His goal was to preserve the status quo by reprovisioning the garrison so they could stay in the fort. All the confederates had to do to avoid a war was to not fire. Lincoln knew there was a possibility the confederates would start a war there, but that doesn't mean he wanted them to start a war there. There's no support for that whatsoever. But Lincoln knew that if the confederates started the war, the Federals would be on the moral high ground, so either way, whether it succeeded or not, the attempt to provision the garrison helped the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Secretary Seward's warning shows that Lincoln and his cabinet were quite aware that sending such an expedition would "precipitate war," with the question being not whether to precipitate it, but WHERE it was to begin.
No, that's simply not the case. They were aware there was a possibility the confederates would start a war, but that's not the same as them wanting a war to start there. You've made a tremendous leap for which there is no support.
All the confederates had to do was not open fire. Nobody forced them to do so.
"[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.”
Ah, yes. War was indeed to be precipitated. Not if, just where and when.
Lincoln drew his line in the sand and declared his intention to "enforce" the collection of duties and holding on to "property" via military invasion if resisted. All the seceders had to do was to pay the revenue and allow foreign troops to station themselves in their harbors, then all would be peaceful.
Lincoln gave them the choice -- independence and war, or submission and peace.
Lincoln gave them the choice -- independence and war, or submission and peace.
Lincoln gave them a choice--permit the status quo to continue by not firing on the fort or fire on the fort and start a war.
"Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. The firing upon that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen." [Robert Toombs to Jefferson Davis, quoted in W. A. Swanberg, First Blood: The Story of Fort Sumter, p. 286]
Jefferson Davis was chomping at the bit to start a war, if not at Fort Sumter, then at Fort Pickens.
"It is scarcely to be doubted that for political reasons the U.S. govt. will avoid making an attack so long as the hope of retaining the border states remains. There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations. The case of Pensacola then is reduced [to] the more palpable elements of a military problem and your measures may without disturbing views be directed to the capture of Fort Pickens and the defence of the harbor. You will soon have I hope a force sufficient to occupy all the points necessary for that end. As many additional troops as may be required can be promptly furnished." [Jefferson Davis to Braxton Bragg, 3 Apr 1861]
As Grady McWhiney writes, "This letter indicates that Davis was willing to start the war. He would have liked to do precisely what Ramsdell claimed Lincoln did--maneuver the enemy into firing the first shot--but the Confederate President considered such a scheme, in his own words, 'overbalanced by other considerations.' Davis counseled action--'your measures may without disturbing views be directed to the capture of Fort Pickens'--and the tone of his letter implied that he expected Bragg to take the fort should he fire the first shot." [Grady McWhiney, "The Confederacy's First Shot," Civil War History, Vol XIV, No. 1, March, 1968, p. 12]
"[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.” -Seward
And with the Fox Expedition, the point of war was decided.
And Lincoln was pleased with the outcome of his decision.
"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." --Lincoln's letter to Gustavus Fox on 1 May, 1861
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
