slavery is at the bottom of everything they were worried about

[trice]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Tim: ....how do you justify the threats of force, the seizures of buildings, posts, forts, equipment and vessels, the actual use of force, the seizure of funds (such as government payrolls and the $600,000 in specie in the New Orleans Custom House), the siege of Federal forts, and finally the actual assault with intent to kill on Fort Sumter? All occurred before Lincoln called for his first extra man, most before he even reached office, many before the states even seceded.

Tim: They had used force to grab property and funds, threatened to harm Federal employees, taken equipment and possession of posts at the point of a gun. Some of this the states did before they passed ordinances of secession.

I'm sorry for trying your patience, Ole, but I don't know how to answer such general charges as in the above. Where he is alluding to the take over of forts, I've answered those charges several times. seizing or "grabbing" "buildings, posts, vessels, seizure of funds", are all vague, unspecific charges. By "posts" is he referring to the Forts that are separately mentioned? If Tim will give me some specifics I'll be glad to answer him to the best of my ability, I'm not familiar with the circumstances surrounding the $600,000 he claims was seized from NO Customs House and haven't had time to go searching for it (the reason I asked for a source for his claims). I've addressed the Ft. Sumter issue more than once in the past.

I went back through Tim's messages to me and didn't find the states and dates you mention. Perhaps they are in other messages or on other threads, but I may not have read them. There are times that I don't have enough time to keep up with all messages that aren't directed to me.

Rose, if you are unaware of the actions the seceding states took in the period between Lincoln's election in 1860 and Lincoln's call for troops in April of 1861, now would be a good time to pause and cease expressing beliefs and opinions about how Southerners acted in those days until you inform yourself. There is nothing at all to be doubted in what I have told you. If anything, I am far short of listing all the events.

The list that follows is taken from the "Summary of the Principal Events" in several sections of the Official Records (Army version) published in the decades after the Civil War. Where you see something with "Note:" in it, you are looking at a point I sumarized from other information in the OR.

Georgia
January 3, 1861.--Fort Pulaski seized by State troops.
January 19, 1861.--Ordinance of secession adopted.
January 24, 1861.--United States Arsenal at Augusta, Ga., seized by State troops.
January 26, 1861.--Oglethorpe Barracks, Savannah, and Fort Jackson, seized by State troops.

Alabama
January 3, 1861 -- Note: Sec. of War Holt refuses Rep. Clopton's Dec. 25 request for the plans for the Mount Vernon Arsenal.
January 4, 1861.--United States Arsenal at Mount Vernon seized by State troops.
January 5, 1861.--Forts Morgan and Gaines seized by State troops
January 11, 1861.--Ordinance of secession adopted in Alabama.

Mississippi
December 21, 1860 -- Note: Sec. of War Floyd unexpectedly orders "Twenty-one 10-inch columbiads; twenty-one 8-inch columbiads, and four 32-pounder guns" sent to Ship Island, a fort under construction, and several years away from completion
December 29, 1860 -- Note: Sec. of War Floyd resigns.
January 3, 1861 -- Note: New Sec. of War Holt cancells Floyd's orders transferring heavy artillery to Ship Island.
January 9, 1861.--Ordinance of secession adopted in Mississippi.
January 20, 1861.--Fort on Ship Island, Miss., seized by State troops.

Florida
January 6, 1861.--United States Arsenal at Apalachicola seized by State troops.
January 7, 1861.--Fort Marion, Saint Augustine, seized by State troops.
January 10, 1861.--Ordinance of secession adopted. U.S. troops transferred from Barrancas Barracks to Fort Pickens, Pensacola Harbor.
January 12, 1861.--Barrancas Barracks, Forts Barrancas and McRee, and the navy-yard, Pensacola, seized by State troops. Surrender of Fort Pickens demanded.
January 14, 1861.--Fort Taylor, Key West, garrisoned by United States troops.
January 15, 1861.--Second demand for surrender of Fort Pickens.
January 18, 1861.--Fort Jefferson, Tortugas, garrisoned by United States troops. Third demand for surrender of Fort Pickens.
January 24, 1861.--Re-enforcements for Fort Pickens sail from Fort Monroe, Va.
February 6, 1861.--U. S. steamer Brooklyn arrives off Pensacola with re-enforcements for Fort Pickens.
March 11, 1861.--Brig. Gen. Braxton Bragg, C. S. Army, assumes command of Confederate forces.
March 21, 1861.--Seizure of the sloop Isabella.
April 7, 1861.--Reinforcements for Fort Pickens sail from New York.
April 12, 1861.--Re-enforcements from Fort Monroe, and detachment of marines, landed at Fort Pickens.

Louisiana
January 10, 1861.--United States Arsenal and Barracks at Baton Rouge seized.
January 10, 1861.--Forts Jackson and Saint Philip seized.
January 14, 1861.--Fort Pike seized.
January 26, 1861.--Ordinance of secession adopted.
January 28, 1861.--Fort Macomb seized. United States property in the hands of Army officers seized at New Orleans.
February 19, 1861.--United States paymaster's office at New Orleans seized.

Texas
December 21, 1860 -- Note: Sec. of War Floyd unexpectedly orders "viz: Twenty three 10-inch columbiads, forty-eight 8-inch columbiads, and seven 32-pounder guns" sent to Galveston, a fort to be constructed, and several years, minimum, from requiring guns.
December 29, 1860 -- Note: Sec. of War Floyd resigns.
January 3, 1861 -- Note: New Sec. of War Holt cancells Floyd's orders transferring heavy artillery to Galveston.
February 1, 1861. -- Ordinance of secession adopted by Texas Convention. (Note: this Convention was convened illegally under Texas law)
February 16, 1861. -- United States Arsenal and Barracks at San Antonio, Tex., seized.
February 18, 1861. -- United States military posts in Department of Texas surrendered by General Twiggs, U.S. Army.
February 19, 1861. -- General Twiggs superseded by Colonel Waite.
February 21, 1861. -- United States property at Brazos Santiago, Tex., seized.
February 26, 1861. -- Camp Cooper, Tex., abandoned.
February 26, 1861. -- Camp Colorado, Tex., abandoned.
March 1, 1861. -- General Twiggs dismissed from the service of the United States.
March 7, 1861. -- Ringgold Barracks, Tex., abandoned.
March 7, 1861. -- Camp Verde, Tex., abandoned.
March 12, 1861. -- Fort McIntosh, Tex., abandoned.
March 15, 1861. -- Camp Wood, Tex., abandoned.
March 17, 1861. -- Camp Hudson, Tex., abandoned.
March 19, 1861. -- Fort. Clark, Tex., abandoned.
March 19, 1861. -- Fort Inge, Tex., abandoned.
March 19, 1861. -- Fort Lancaster, Tex., abandoned.
March 20, 1861. -- Fort Brown, Tex., abandoned.
March 20, 1861. -- Fort Duncan, Tex., abandoned.
March 29, 1861. -- Col. William W. Loring, U.S. Army, assumes command of the Department of New Mexico.
March 23, 1861. -- Fort Chadbourne, Tex., abandoned.
March 29, 1861. -- Fort Mason, Tex., abandoned.
March 31, 1861. -- Fort Bliss, Tex., abandoned.
April 5, 1861. -- Fort Quitman, Tex., abandoned.
April 13, 1861. -- Fort Davis, Tex., abandoned.

Arkansas / Missouri
February 8, 1861. -- United States Arsenal at Little Rock, Ark., seized.
February 12, 1861. -- United States ordnance stores seized at Napoleon, Ark.(Exact date of seizure unknown)
April 16, 1861. -- Fort Wa****a, Ind. T., abandoned.
April 17, 1861. -- The governor of Missouri refuses to furnish quota of militia to the United States.
April 18, 1861. -- United States subsistence stores seized at Pine Bluff, Ark.
April 20, 1861. -- United States Arsenal at Liberty, Mo., seized.
April 22, 1861. -- The governor of Arkansas refuses to furnish quota of militia to the United States.
April 23, 1861. -- Fort Smith, Ark., seized.
May 4, 1861 -- United States ordnance stores seized at Kansas City, Mo.
May 5, 1861. -- Forts Arbuckle and Cobb, Ind. T., abandoned.
May 6, 1861. -- Ordinance of secession adopted by Arkansas Convention.

As I said, this is not a complete list, just the Army list. It does not include things like the seizure of Customs Houses and the funds at them, or revenue cutters, or postal facilities, or lighthouses, etc. and goes into no detail on the seizure of Navy items.

The $600,000 in specie I mentioned was in the Customs House in New Orleans when the state of Lousiana seized it. The actual amount according to one source I have seen was $599,303. Louisiana gave much of this to the Confederacy to fund the formation of the government in early February of 1861 -- well before Abraham Lincoln even left Illinois to take the oath of office.

Louisiana also seized the US Mint at New Orleans, which you won't see in the list above because it didn't involve the Army. According to the Louisiana audit taken at the time, there were $500,000 worth of gold and silver in inventory when they seized it. There were 2,532,633 US half-dollars coined at that Mint in 1861: 330,000 while the US controlled it, 1,240,000 while Louisiana controlled it, and 962,633 after LA gave it to the Confederacy (April 1, 1861). Another 17,741 US gold double-eagles were also issued during this time. Since the same dies were used, no one can detect which were issued by which authority: they all look like US coins. Most governments would consider this counterfeiting. Note: the Confederacy did try to issue coins with new dies, but by then they'd used up all the gold and silver stocks and only a small amount were made. Mint closed April 30 as a result of the shortages.

From another source, I have seen that Texas seized this when Twiggs was forced into his agreement with them: "$55,000 in specie, 35,000 stand of arms, 26 pieces of mounted artillery, 44 dismounted guns, and ammunition, horses, wagons, forage, etc., valued at nearly $2,000,000."

You can also go further and try to look at what was in the other Customs Houses when seized (such as Savannah, Charleston, etc.) and the revenue cutters and store-ships seized, etc. The details will simply be superfluous. The facts are clear: the seceding states consistently seized property illegally, without due process, and against the protest of US officials. They started all this long before Lincoln was in office -- often in advance of actual secession ordinances.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
That is why Rhett, Meminger, and Keitt were all against using anything but slavery as a reason in their Declaration of the Causes of Secession when the tariff and matters like this were brought up. They understood and said they believed this law was unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

If these secessionists believed the FSL was unconstitutional, how did that help them with using slavery as a reason for secession? Sorry, I'm puzzled at this statement.

I find myself puzzled. You are continually either avoiding the thrust of what I say or turning statements upside down and replying to things not said. Why?

My point was that Rhett, Meminger, Keitt and the like avoided using anything except slavery because they saw the inherent weakness of making claims that tariffs or the Fugitive Slave laws were a cause of secession. This is 180 degrees opposite what you are claiming in your response.

Their belief in the unconstitutional nature of the Fugitive Slave Act did not "help them with using slavery as a reason", it restricted them from using the Northern reaction to the Fugitive Slave law in their declaration. Just as their understanding that the current Tariff was just as low as the South had wanted it to be restricted them from declaring it to be a cause of secession. This is not evident in their popular rhetoric, but when they had to boil everything down to a formal declaration of exactly why they were doing what they were doing, they avoided anything but the issue of slave property.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Tim - "If your examples do not involve the US Constitution, they are not pertinent to secession in any way."

Huh? Remember that the Constitution is SILENT on secession. I look to the Constitution to determine that secession is NOT a matter of federal law. State sovereign powers do NOT involve the Constitution, aside from the fact that the 10th Amend. mentions them. My examples are, like secession, the exercise of state sovereign powers.

Your "fireworks" example is an example of a purely local issue that has little or no impact on other states/the Union. Yet you insist it applies to situations that have massive impact upon other states/the Union. You are trying to argue that apples and oranges are the same thing here.

I think your statement above shows your real issue here. You are determined to find that secession is as you want it to be. You insist all discussion start with the states being empowered to secede, and have no desire to determine the accuracy of that demand. So you reject all you do not wish to see, and seem outraged with any disagreement.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

"Why then would you claim that their authority in the 19th Century was based on Supreme Court interpertations of the 20th Century?"

I don't recall making such a claim. But like I said, I'm done with water rights. I'll happily entertain other examples.

Russ, only one message back that's where you said to look: in 20th Century Supreme Court interpretations of the Interstate Commerce clause. Clearly the Court was not basing their actions in the Nineteenth Century on this, so why bother suggesting it?

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Tim - "That would be the Constitution, the Amendments to it, the body of laws enacted under it, and all the history of judicial decisions associated with it."

JUST the Constitution and the amendments; not the other stuff.

Interesting view. Must be nice to be able to disregard 200+ years of legislation and court interpertation. Must make it much easier to take your positions, I expect.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

"The majority opinion in White v. Texas was that the Union was 'perpetual' and 'indissoluble'. It rejected the 'compact" theory.'

I don't recall any rejection of the compact theory; do you have a page cite for that proposition?

From the majority opinion of Justice Chase, about 727:
---------
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

Our conclusion therefore is that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.
-----

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

At any rate, as I've told you, that case is wrong. As proof, I challenge you to find the words 'perpetual' or 'indissoluble' anywhere in the Constitution.

Russ, I really mean no offense, but you might want to consider that it is far more likely that the Justices of the Supreme Court might be right and you might be wrong. Their decision has force under the law. Your decision does not, unless you happen to be a judge yourself -- and even then, they would be able to overrule you.

I have already told you several times what the opinion says. You already know that the Chief Justice never said the word "perpetual" was in the Constitution. I have already told you more than once what his argument was, that the "more perfect Union" of the Constitution was necessarily the same Perpetual Union that the states pledged themselves to in 1781 with the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union". Yet you continue to come back with this demand for a cite of the word "perpetual" in the Constitution. At this point, the question has to be why are you trying to avoid the issue in this fashion?

Again, from the majority opinion in Texas v. White:
-----
It is needless to discuss at length the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause regarded by herself as sufficient is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
-----

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

I've already addressed your alternative possible methods to achieve secession. None of them are required or authorized by the Constitution.

Required? No, they are simply procedural methods by which the question could be legally and peacefully resolved without fighting a war. The Confederate states decided to avoid using them and chose war as their tool. They are therefore responsible for all that follows from their decision.

But "authorized"? Yes, the Constitution does authorize these methods.

• The Supreme Court was specifically given authority over controversies between states, or where the Federal government was a party. All the states had agreed to this. The seceding states chose not to use it
• Congress or the states can initiate amendments of the Constitution, and the amendments can do or undo literally anything necessary. The seceding states chose not to attempt this method.
• Congress had been allowed to admit Texas as a state, although many had argued the method used was unconstitutional. The reverse might have also have been allowed to pass.

Since there are clear methods that might have been tried, with precedent or actual text to support them, why is it that you insist that something never tried before, with no authority to appeal to, much in doubt, was the only possibility? Since nothing here would preclude the secessionists from proceeding as they did (i.e., initiating a trial by combat of the issue), why not try these clearly available methods first?

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
After that, the commissioner made the decision based on paperwork submitted. They were paid $5 for finding a suspect was not a runaway slave -- and $10 for finding that he was. Not too many decided the papaerwork was insufficient.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

So you think the commissioners were often crooked?

I believe I know of no other law in this country where the person making the decision gets paid twice as much for finding against you as they do for finding in your favor. I would think any such law was inherently subject to abuse and corruption, and would have to assume that those passing such an unusual and outrageous condition intended it as an incentive to encourage the "commissioner" to find the accused should be sent back as an escaped slave.

You have told me that you are not in the habit of acknowledging that which you do not believe, and now you seem to have decided to answer posts with rhetorical questions that seem aimed at avoiding acknowledging data you do not like.

I don't mind doing some work to present data and exchanging views you if you are seeking truth. If your mind is closed and you simply do not want to see data and ideas that make you uncomfortable, this discussion can only be a waste of time.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
There was no Habeas Corpus permitted for a state to protect its' citizen. There was no trial by jury allowed. The accused was not allowed to speak in his own defense. The commissioners could compel the accused to be returned to the state of the accuser, using any force necessary. If there is to be a hearing in a court at al it will not be in the state where the accused was apprehended, but after extradition back to the state where he alledgedly fled. The entire concept of "states' rights" was devastated in this law. Under it, the states are not sovereign.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

There were so few blacks living in the Northern states that I can't imagine "protecting citizens" was much of a problem. For instance Ohio's population contained only 1.28% blacks, Illinois had 0.64% while Indiana only had 1.14% blacks. The good citizens of these states would probably have raised a ruckus if a Southern man had tried to take one of their own...or would they? They did seem to go to extra lengths to keep blacks out of their states.

Ohio had 36,673 free colored people in the 1860 US Census. Illinois had 7,628. I don't know why you would bother asking a rhetorical question such as "The good citizens of these states would probably have raised a ruckus if a Southern man had tried to take one of their own...or would they?". We have solid evidence that they did, indeed, raise a ruckus about this. That was why they kept passing Personal Liberty Laws in response to this constant attempt to intrude upon their "states' rights" by the slave states.

In Massachusetts (only 9,602 free colored in 1860) there was such a strong reaction to one such attempt that Federal forces had to intervene. This was Anthony Burns, accused of being an escaped slave from Virginia. In a riot, a guard was killed in the attempt to release the man from jail by a mob. To give you an idea of the size of the effort to comply with the law, it cost the Federal government $100,000 to escort him to Virginia.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Tim "But in any case, American history will show many cases of 'undeclared war'."

I guess you're back to that 'two wrongs makes a right' theory.

Russ, you asked a question. "Isn't a declaration of war supposed to precede an invasion of foreign soil?"

All I did was reply to it. Looking at American history -- both before and after Lincoln -- will reveal many occasions on which US troops "invaded" foreign soil without a declaration of war. Congress and the Supreme Court have allowed this for 200 years or more. I have relatives living right now who have been in countries we never declared war on, getting shot at. Clearly a lot of people have disagreed with what you suppose.

I made no value judgement at all about rights or wrongs on this. Anything you say about 'two wrongs makes a right' here is merely in your imagination, as it was the first time you brought it up as well.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Tim - The invasion of foreign soil to which I was referring was the US's invasion of Va. resulting in First Manassas. But then I think you knew that, and have rather chosen to obfuscate the issue. I'm not inclined to play along.

Let's be clear here: you are dead wrong in your claim.

If you wish to peg things to "invasion of foreign soil", it was the Confederacy that invaded Maryland before ever a single Federal soldier crossed the Potomac headed south. The soon-to-be-Stonewall Jackson did it immediately after he assumed command at Harpers Ferry so that he could fortify Maryland Heights. The troops he sent met a Maryland sheriff, who took exception to their presence, but remained until Robert E. Lee in Richmond told Jackson he might have been a little forward in his thinking.

But then Jackson was in Virginia's army, not the Confederate one, and the Confederacy was trying to rush troops forward to seize Washington in April. They just couldn't manage to get it done in time.

Earlier still: three months before 1st Manassas, the Confederate forces under Beauregard assaulted and seized the US territory at Ft. Sumter.

Secessionist arguments routinely act as if Confederate aggression never occurred. This is not believable. Facts still exist, no matter how much you wish to ignore them. They do not go away because you wish to proclaim something different.

Regards,
Tim

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by trice
That is why Rhett, Meminger, and Keitt were all against using anything but slavery as a reason in their Declaration of the Causes of Secession when the tariff and matters like this were brought up. They understood and said they believed this law was unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by trice

I find myself puzzled. You are continually either avoiding the thrust of what I say or turning statements upside down and replying to things not said. Why?

I'm neither avoiding or turning your statements upside down. You weren't being clear. For one thing it's difficult to understand why you keep hammering on three individuals as if they were representative of the entire South. While these men had doubts about the Constitutionality of the FSL, they had no doubts about Article 4, Sec. 2, of the Constitution and all of the Declarations of Causes said so, including that of South Carolina.

Originally Posted by trice

My point was that Rhett, Meminger, Keitt and the like avoided using anything except slavery because they saw the inherent weakness of making claims that tariffs or the Fugitive Slave laws were a cause of secession. This is 180 degrees opposite what you are claiming in your response.

I fail to see how you figure that is in opposition of what I claimed in my response. The FSL was an attempt to enforce the Constitution. I fail to see the unconstitutionality of it, but then my personal opinion has nothing to do with it. Again, you focus on three men as representing the entire seceeding South. Mississippi specifically mentioned the FSL in their Causes doc.

Regards,
Rose

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by trice

Rose, if you are unaware of the actions the seceding states took in the period between Lincoln's election in 1860 and Lincoln's call for troops in April of 1861, now would be a good time to pause and cease expressing beliefs and opinions about how Southerners acted in those days until you inform yourself.

I was aware of many of those actions, but it remained to be seen what specifically you were talking about. I don’t know why you are interested in all actions up until Mr. Lincoln called for troops since the U.S. was making ready for the possibility of war prior to him taking office. Many of those things you list need no defense since the Southern states had very good reason to believe they were defending themselves, which was their right and duty to Southern citizens.

I won’t address any post Secession issues here because once secession occurred I don‘t believe any defense of the motives are necessary. Prior to secession (as well as post-secession) the forts were seized in order to prevent them from being used against the states.

All seizures were in defense of the states. They had reason to believe the U.S. would use these strategic locations from which to wage war on the state. In some instances as with Holt’s acts, the U.S. had began preparing to war on the Southern states. All Southern acts were done strictly in self-defense with no idea to wage any war or cause bloodshed.


The following letter explains the Southern position and reasons for occupying Fort Morgan, Fort Gaines and the U.S. Arsenal at Mount Vernon:



Letter from the Governor of Alabama to the President of the United States.


EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Montgomery, Ala., January 4 [?], 1861.

To his Excellency JAMES BUCHANAN, President of the United States:

SIR: In a spirit, of frankness I hasten to inform you by letter that by my order Fort Morgan and Fort Gaines, and the United States Arsenal {p.328} at Mount Vernon were on yesterday* peacefully occupied, and are now held by the troops of the State of Alabama. That this act on my part may not be misunderstood by the Government of the United States, I proceed to state the motives which have induced it, and the reasons which justify it, and also the course of conduct with which I design to follow that act.

A convention of the people of this State will, in pursuance of a previously-enacted law, assemble on the 7th instant. I was fully convinced by the evidences which I had that that convention would at an early day, in the exercise of an authority which in my judgment of right belongs to it, withdraw the State of Alabama from the Government of the United States and place it in the attitude of a separate and independent power. Being thus convinced I deemed it my duty to take every precautionary step to make the secession of the State peaceful, and prevent detriment to her people.


While entertaining such a conviction as to my duty, I received such information as left but little, if any, room to doubt that the Government of the United States, anticipating the secession of Alabama, and preparing to maintain its authority within this State by force, even to the shedding of the blood and the sacrifice of the lives of the people, was about to re-enforce those forts and put a guard over the arsenal. Having that information, it was but an act of self-defense, and the plainest dictate of prudence, to anticipate and guard against the contemplated movement of the authorities of the General Government. Appreciating, as I am sure you do, the courage and spirit of our people, you must be sensible that no attempt at the coercion of the State, or at the enforcement by military power of the authority of the United States within its jurisdiction in contravention of the ordinance of secession can be effectual, unless our utmost capacity for resistance can be exhausted. It would have been an unwise policy, suicidal in its character, to have permitted the Government of the United States to have made undisturbed preparations within this State to enforce by war and bloodshed an authority which it is the fixed purpose of the people of the State to resist to the uttermost of their power. A policy so manifestly unwise would probably have been overruled by an excited and discontented people, and popular violence might have accomplished that which has been done by the State much more appropriately and much more consistently with the prospect of peace and the interests of the parties concerned.


The purpose with which my order was given and has been executed was to avoid and not to provoke hostilities between the State and Federal Government. There is no object, save the honor and independence of my State, which is by me so ardently desired as the preservation of amicable relations between this State and the Government of the United States. That the secession of the State, made necessary by the conduct of others, may be peaceful is my prayer as well as the prayer of every patriotic man in the State.


An inventory of the property in the forts and arsenal has been ordered, and the strictest care will be taken to prevent the injury or destruction of it while peaceable relations continue to subsist, as I trust they will. The forts and arsenal will be held by my order only for the precautionary purpose for which they were taken, and subject to the control of the convention of the people to assemble on the 7th instant.

With distinguished consideration, I am your obedient servant,


A. B. MOORE.
(All emphasis in the above letter is mine)


Regarding the seizure of the U.S. Mint at New Orleans I haven’t, so far, found much information. I know the CSA sent a delegation to negotiate and pay their fair share of the national debt, but were refused to be seen by Mr. Lincoln.

Regarding Twiggs and Texas, this happened after secession and needs no justification since it was common practice among both the CSA and the US militaries to confiscate property in areas where they took over occupation.

Neither did I address the long list of abandoned forts in Texas.

Regards,
Rose

[unionblue]

Wild Rose,

'Common practice' does not make it legal, or right.

It is common practice for a thief to shove a gun in your ribs and demand your money. Still doesn't make it legal, or right.

Sincerely,
Unionblue