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.
__________________ 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
"[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
Hal
If you want to misconstrue what Lincoln was saying.
If you want to misconstrue what Lincoln was saying.
Regards,
Cash
I wish I was so brazen and bold as to write off whatever was said as being "misconstrued" if that particular point did not go well with my position.
I'm curious if you still believe that the north wanted to hold the South to what they had agreed to (as you argued on another thread)?
Can you clarify whether it was a desire to hold the south to the union, or simply because Sumter was fired on, that motivated Lincoln's war on his southern brethren?
I wish I was so brazen and bold as to write off whatever was said as being "misconstrued" if that particular point did not go well with my position.
No boldness required, since it was misconstrued. Lincoln was basically saying there would be one of two results from the attempt to land provisions at Fort Sumter:
1. The confederates would allow it and the status quo would continue, giving them an opportunity to resolve the situation peacefully when cooler heads among the south prevailed, allowing the southern states to think better of the foolish secession idea.
2. The confederates would not allow it and start a war.
If a war was to be started, it was better for it to be started by the confederates.
Where you go awry is you don't appear to believe Lincoln considered Choice 1, and you think that Choice 2 means Lincoln wanted war. Both notions are wrong. Just because Lincoln was willing to accept a war the confederates started doesn't mean he wanted a war to start. Keeping the status quo in the harbor maintained peacefully was a far better alternative for him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
I'm curious if you still believe that the north wanted to hold the South to what they had agreed to (as you argued on another thread)?
I've seen no reason to alter that view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Can you clarify whether it was a desire to hold the south to the union, or simply because Sumter was fired on, that motivated Lincoln's war on his southern brethren?
I reject the premise of your question.
Lincoln opposed secession because it was an unconstitutional action, and his sworn duty as president was to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. His firm stance against secession showed the United States was not going to back down. Jefferson Davis saw the only way to get the upper south into the confederacy was to start a war, and he saw that there were rumblings beginning among the populace about secession having been a mistake. It was Jefferson Davis' war, not Lincoln's. Davis is the one who made the decision to start it, not Lincoln.
Lincoln was basically saying there would be one of two results from the attempt to land provisions at Fort Sumter:
1. The confederates would allow it and the status quo would continue, giving them an opportunity to resolve the situation peacefully when cooler heads among the south prevailed, allowing the southern states to think better of the foolish secession idea.
2. The confederates would not allow it and start a war.
If a war was to be started, it was better for it to be started by the confederates.
Hawgwash.
Lincoln unequivocably and boldly stated his position on preventing secession with the cannon and purse of the union as early as four years before anyone seceded.
He adopted the policy of irrepressible conflict early on, and worked from that platform from the get-go.
He reaffirmed his intentions vis a vis the seceders in his 1st inaugural justification of invasion declaration.
He rejected each and every overture from the seceders to hold civil discussions regarding any point of potential flare-up.
He worked with his cabinet to come up with the best way to precipitate war and at the same time appear to be the victim; and he followed through with that calculated plan to get him to the point of war with the South and garner support for it among the populace of the north.
He was a brilliant man.
Quote:
Where you go awry is you don't appear to believe Lincoln considered Choice 1, and you think that Choice 2 means Lincoln wanted war. Both notions are wrong. Just because Lincoln was willing to accept a war the confederates started doesn't mean he wanted a war to start. Keeping the status quo in the harbor maintained peacefully was a far better alternative for him.
You are badly mistaken.
Lincoln never gave anyone "Choice one" and you left out choice three, four and five.
Quote: Originally Posted by hawglips
I'm curious if you still believe that the north wanted to hold the South to what they had agreed to (as you argued on another thread)?
Quote:
I've seen no reason to alter that view.
So why pretend that Sumter had anything to do with it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips Can you clarify whether it was a desire to hold the south to the union, or simply because Sumter was fired on, that motivated Lincoln's war on his southern brethren?
Quote:
I reject the premise of your question.
Lincoln opposed secession because it was an unconstitutional action, and his sworn duty as president was to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. His firm stance against secession showed the United States was not going to back down. Jefferson Davis saw the only way to get the upper south into the confederacy was to start a war, and he saw that there were rumblings beginning among the populace about secession having been a mistake. It was Jefferson Davis' war, not Lincoln's. Davis is the one who made the decision to start it, not Lincoln.
Cash, you really are a slow learner.
Even though I have spoonfed you this several times now, you still don't seem to grasp that an unspecified, nonexistent clause in the Constitution does not render an action in violation of the nonexistent, unspecified clause unconstitutional.
And you are still confused as to what the President's oath was. I would paste it here again, but I fear you would ignore it again. Maybe you should post the presidential oath of office here yourself, and perhaps have better recall...
We all know who's war it was, though some of us will go to the grave denying it.
"But the Union, in any event, won't be dissolved. We don't want to dissolve it, and if you attempt it, we won't let you. With the purse and sword, the army and navy and treasury in our hands and at our command, you couldn't do it. This Government would be very weak, indeed, if a majority, with a disciplined army and navy, and a well-filled treasury, could not preserve itself, when attacked by an unarmed, undisciplined, unorganized minority. All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug---nothing but folly. We ``WON'T'' dissolve the Union, and you ``SHAN'T''.'' -- Speech at Galena, Illinois, July 23, 1856
"The power confided in me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion--no using of force against, or among the people anywhere." First Inaugural - 1861
"[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.” -- Secretary of State William Seward, during a Cabinet meeting in the first month of the Lincoln administration
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the war 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." ~ Lincoln in a letter to Gustavus Fox, dated May 1st, 1865
"We feel that our cause is just and holy; we protest solemnly in the face of mankind that we desire peace at any sacrifice save that of honour and independence; we ask no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms." President Jefferson Davis, 29 April, 1861
The cause in which we are engaged is the cause of the advocacy of rights to which we were born, those for which our fathers of the Revolution bled--the richest inheritance that ever fell to man, and which it is our sacred duty to transmit untarnished to our children. Upon us is devolved the high and holy responsibility of preserving the Constitutional liberty of a free government. (Jefferson Davis' speech in Richmond, June 1, 1861)
Lincoln unequivocably and boldly stated his position on preventing secession with the cannon and purse of the union as early as four years before anyone seceded.
So is it your contention he planned from at least 1856 on having a war? Talk about Hawgwash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
He reaffirmed his intentions vis a vis the seceders in his 1st inaugural justification of invasion declaration.
Yes, he would maintain possession of Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens. If the confederates hadn't attacked Fort Sumter and if they did not attack Fort Pickens there would have been no war. Note that he never attempted to collect the revenue from the southern ports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
He rejected each and every overture from the seceders to hold civil discussions regarding any point of potential flare-up.
He rejected each and every attempt from the representatives of an illegal rebellion to get him to surrender and give their illegal rebellion the false cloak of legality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
He worked with his cabinet to come up with the best way to precipitate war and at the same time appear to be the victim; and he followed through with that calculated plan to get him to the point of war with the South and garner support for it among the populace of the north.
An assertion not supported by the historical record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
So why pretend that Sumter had anything to do with it?
No pretending at all. If the confederates didn't fire there wouldn't have been a war. The confederacy would have fallen apart peacefully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Even though I have spoonfed you this several times now, you still don't seem to grasp that an unspecified, nonexistent clause in the Constitution does not render an action in violation of the nonexistent, unspecified clause unconstitutional.
The Constitution remains supreme law no matter what law or ordinance a state may pass. A state, on its own, cannot claim the US Constitution and US Law no longer apply to it, because the Constitution and US Law remain supreme law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
And you are still confused as to what the President's oath was. I would paste it here again, but I fear you would ignore it again. Maybe you should post the presidential oath of office here yourself, and perhaps have better recall...
See Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." As his oath of office said he shall "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States," he swore to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
We all know who's war it was, though some of us will go to the grave denying it.
I can't help it if you refuse to admit it was Davis' 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]
It violated the U.S. Constitution. South Carolina did not have the unilateral right to claim the federal fort, even though it was in South Carolina territory.
Once the Confederacy crossed that bridge, their arguments meant nothing to Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln would raise billions and arm hundreds of thousands.
Arguments about the right of secession did not matter anymore, just as it didn't matter at Appomattox Courthouse.
So is it your contention he planned from at least 1856 on having a war? Talk about Hawgwash.
At least you capitalized it this time! I feel more important now.
That is not my contention.
Lincoln's position was clear though.
Quote:
Quote:
Note that he never attempted to collect the revenue from the southern ports.
Impatient aren't we?
Give him a couple more weeks and let's see what he would have done. It takes time to put mobilize for such things.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
He rejected each and every overture from the seceders to hold civil discussions regarding any point of potential flare-up.
Quote:
He rejected each and every attempt from the representatives of an illegal rebellion to get him to surrender and give their illegal rebellion the false cloak of legality.
Nice excuse. The end result is the same. He wasn't interested in peace. His position was war, his intent was war, and he was not going to allow the South their independence.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
So why pretend that Sumter had anything to do with it?
Quote:
No pretending at all. If the confederates didn't fire there wouldn't have been a war. The confederacy would have fallen apart peacefully.
So what was it? Sumter? Or holding the States to their original "agreement" to join the Union?
Please make up your mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Quote:
Even though I have spoonfed you this several times now, you still don't seem to grasp that an unspecified, nonexistent clause in the Constitution does not render an action in violation of the nonexistent, unspecified clause unconstitutional.
Quote:
The Constitution remains supreme law no matter what law or ordinance a state may pass. A state, on its own, cannot claim the US Constitution and US Law no longer apply to it, because the Constitution and US Law remain supreme law.
Where is this phantom law of immaculate conception? I keep asking. You keep failing to show it.
I'd like to see the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Quote:
And you are still confused as to what the President's oath was. I would paste it here again, but I fear you would ignore it again. Maybe you should post the presidential oath of office here yourself, and perhaps have better recall...
Quote:
See Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." As his oath of office said he shall "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States," he swore to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
[sigh] I guess you will just refuse to show it. If you will not show it, please at least refrain from saying the oath was to defend the US. Please.
Nice excuse. The end result is the same. He wasn't interested in peace. His position was war, his intent was war, and he was not going to allow the South their independence.
Wrong, He wasn't interested in surrendering. He was willing to accept war if the confederates wanted to start one, but he was more than willing to compromise so long as it didn't mean surrender.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
So what was it? Sumter? Or holding the States to their original "agreement" to join the Union?
Please make up your mind.
You seem to have trouble following this. I'll see if I can simplify:
Reason for opposing secession: holding the states to their agreement to abide by the Constitution.
What started the war: Fort Sumter.
Got it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Where is this phantom law of immaculate conception? I keep asking. You keep failing to show it.
I'd like to see the law.
Article VI, Clause 2. The Constitution remains supreme law no matter what law or ordinance a state may pass. A state, on its own, cannot claim the US Constitution and US Law no longer apply to it, because the Constitution and US Law remain supreme law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
[sigh] I guess you will just refuse to show it. If you will not show it, please at least refrain from saying the oath was to defend the US. Please.
I don't believe I ever did. If you'll check back you should see that I said it was to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That is one of his constitutional duties, and he swore to faithfully execute the office of the President, which means carrying out his constitutional duties.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
