VA secession vote, 5/23/1861, troops at polling places

[trice]

Originally Posted by trice

But what exactly were they voting on? Secession was already in existence de facto. The state government has already initiated hostilities with the US, seized all Federal facilities it can easily get, fired at US flag vessels, and sent Virginia forces and weapons into Maryland. The Confederate capital is already moving to Richmond. A alliance is already in effect.
So what would have happened if the state voted "NO" with a roar? Would all those "foreign" troops have immediately left peacefully (giving back the weaponsd virginia had already issued them)? Would Jefferson Davis and his government

Originally Posted by Hanny

By forgien troops you mean troops without legal authority to be there, i take it?, VA nor legislature not have requested troops from other states to put down an insurection, as required by the laws on insurection lincoln said was in operation and working under, or aproved of their unlawfull entry into the state which was at that time the only way militia could enter another state, ie with its permision and request to do so, Even reugulars require prior invitation, as in Harpers Ferry insurection, invited in by the Gov, removed and re invited in again shortly after.

Hmm, you lost me here. What I meant was simply non-Virginian troops. As I have pointed out previously, this included about half of the available Confederate Army, plus 3 regiments of Tennessee troops (who would not vote for separation until June), 500 Kentuckians, roughly 1,000 Marylanders, and perhaps some state militia from other states.

Virginia cannot use the US Militia law to request troops from other states; they could have used it to ask President Lincoln for troops. If that is what you are referring to, I do not think it works the way you do.

Regulars do not require an invitation to be in any part of the US. The government can send them here or there as it wills, and that would certainly be true of Federal property such as Harper's Ferry (example: Governor Letcher did not request any US Regulars at Harpers Ferry in 1861, but some were sent there anyway). The governor may, of course, request their use to help with a crisis.

Originally Posted by Hanny

As to what they were voteing on, thats the popular referendum required by state law which followed the legisltures votes by delgates that allow it pass to the people for them to express their will, thats the full legal requirements for secesion to have legally jumped through all the hoops.

IIRR, according to the authority of the secession convention, they were supposed to submit their decision to a referendum before acting. Instead, they seized Federal property, fired upon US vessels, invited foreign forces into the state (hostile to the US), used state equipment to arm thousands of Confederates, concluded a military arrangement and made Richmond the capital of the Confederacy. To be kind, we can say they exceeded their authority and jumped the gun in a difficult situation.

But those very acts from April 17 to May 23 will change the options available to the voters. If secession is voted down, what happens? Will all those troops leave peacefully, since Virginia will effectively have just joined the Union side of the Civil War?

Originally Posted by Hanny

Then your post gets chopped, ive notived the board does a lot, so cant really guess what else you wanted my opinion on.
lets use what i can gather though, Seward diverts a ship sent on Lincolns orders to Sumpter to retake Fort Picknens, the Oc looks at the ship arriving and the orders its capt has, refuses to do so because the chain of command has not been followed, and therfore the orders are ilegal and he and any of his men would be libale for murder should they take a life in following thos orders.

Hmm, to the extent that a ship intended to accompany the expedition to Charleston was diverted to Ft. Pickens, largely because of Seward and confusion in the Lincoln administration, that is so. However, Ft. Pickens was already held by US forces, and had been under siege by Confederate or state forces since January. There was a local truce there, so US forces were not being landed, but were sitting offshore. The truce had no effect upon the Confederates, who were simply not strong enough to take the fort without a great risk of failure and loss of life. Davis administration had considered and rejected attacking here. They attacked at Ft. Sumter because that was virtually a sure thing.

Originally Posted by Hanny

A Uk example is a magistrate readeds the riot act, following which the mil and civil authority can use whatever force it likes to subdue the riot, any officer acting prior to that is not covered by the provisions of the riot act and liable to prosecuction.AUS example is other states militia passing through Baltimore, the first man killed is a lawyer telling them they have no legal right to be there, shot down along with others when the troops after great restrainst used force to effect their unlawfuill passage, the result wa sthat the moves to prevent them spreaqd to official acts rather than mobs of private individuals.

Baltimore at the time was widely known for mob violence, frequently referred to in newspapers as "Mobtown" during the 1850s. The troops, of course, had been assaulted before they fired. Four soldiers and twelve civilians were killed, and scores were injured.

In retrospect, the rioters were quite lucky they were facing raw militia and not trained or veteran troops. There would have been far more deaths in that case.

Originally Posted by Hanny

If the popular vote had been no, the no secesion was in existance, but thats a highly unlikly posobility given the extent of secesionst fervor after lincoln made a great move to unite the North, whiich davis said fine, ill see that gambit as it will drive more states to secede because while they wont over our arguments, they will when you turn to coerce us.

Davis and the Confederacy deliberately chose to strike with the secession of VA-TN-NC-AR in mind. Obviously they got what they wanted. The Confederate Sec. of State however, told them that attacking Ft. Sumter would be fatal, and it was in the end. Sometimes you are much better off not getting what you wish for.

Regards,
Tim

[ole]

Trice. A sidebar:

The truce had no effect upon the Confederates, who were simply not strong enough to take the fort without a great risk of failure and loss of life. Davis administration had considered and rejected attacking here.

I read that Bragg offered to storm the fort and expected to take it because his troops were too green to know better.Just an aside.
Ole

[trice]

Originally Posted by ole

Trice. A sidebar:
I read that Bragg offered to storm the fort and expected to take it because his troops were too green to know better.Just an aside.
Ole

He said that he thought he could, pointing out the difficulties, after being asked by Walker, the Secretary of War. I'll post the OR messages in a separate thread for you.

Regards,
Tim

[ole]

He said that he thought he could, pointing out the difficulties, after being asked by Walker, the Secretary of War. I'll post the OR messages in a separate thread for you.

Which you did and I appreciate it very much. You really ought not go to so much work on a frivolous comment. I'd have appreciated it with just the appropriate OR location. But, thank you.
Ole

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by trice

Hmm, you lost me here. What I meant was simply non-Virginian troops. As I have pointed out previously, this included about half of the available Confederate Army, plus 3 regiments of Tennessee troops (who would not vote for separation until June), 500 Kentuckians, roughly 1,000 Marylanders, and perhaps some state militia from other states.

Yes so do i, but i expressed it poorly. 500 Kentucky catches my eye, T Jackson "I have occupied the Maryland hieghts with the KY`s and a Coy From Augusta County making a total of 500 in all" Jackson to Lee correspondence May 9, the local newspaper (Staunton Spectator,May 14 edition) described them as "being in high spirits and armed with pistols and bowie knives and disposed to grumble at nothing except inactivity". Roberston in His bio of jackson remarks that Jackson put the undersize KY Reg on the heights when they arrived without orders at HF, and were acting in a semi official capacity, Jackson goes on to request more long arms, and explains he has more men than arms to arm them, having been orderd on 27 April to take command at HF by letcher( You will procede without delay to HF VA, in execution of the orders of the Gov of the state and assume command of that post. After mustering into service of the state such coys as may be acepted under your instruction and organised into Reg or Battn uniting as far as possible same coys from the same section of the State. these will be placed under senoir Capt untill field officers can be appointed by the Gov.") As far as i tell the Augusta milita would be close to 100 strong so that makes it 400 KY in all probability, a small thing to be sure but i cant help but mention it.) What i refered to was that VA considerd itself a Sov state, entry into it by other states armed citizens requires its consent, all others are there without the benifit of lawfull entry. Since Va was part of the CSA and had extened the right of entry to all members of the CSA they were in the state on the authority of the Gov, who along with the legilsture can authorise that entry, that makes the Union states militia the unlawfull troops in the state, and from the Union pov, all are insurectilists individuals and they are the only ones lawfull armed and in the state.

Originally Posted by trice

Virginia cannot use the US Militia law to request troops from other states; they could have used it to ask President Lincoln for troops. If that is what you are referring to, I do not think it works the way you do.

They requested, (perhaps authorised is better, their presecence in the State) them from the Union with the CSA at the beginning of the month, after delegates voted 88 to 55 and to secede and enter into a new Union with the CSA 103 to 46 on the 17th, incl mil passage etc, subject to state wide popular ratification. USA Militia act otoh requires a request from a state governer or legislture to enter the state to put down an insurection against the authority of the state, or invasion, insurection in law had no other definition, which was the USA AG opinion, which got him sacked, and was the posistion of D Webster back in the nullfication crisses when he spoke in Congress and told Jackson he had no right or power to declare a blockade or call up the militia against SC, the former requires an act of congress and the latter the request of the state Gov or legislature. Jackson got his force bill through congress and never used the laws of insurection as did lincoln, becaused the whisky rebelion that gave the pres 30, later 90 days to use militia is a pregnant negative, that is to say an exception to the rule that Congress determines the use of force against a state, and was put in place so that immediate and prompt action could be taken to respond to indian raids that occur very suddenly and required prompt response,less greater harm occur through delayed action. Not a carte Blanche the pres has a private army for a mimited period to do with what he wants.
I think the milita Act worked the way the Gov of Va, D Webster and the just sacked AG thought it did, Lincoln disagreed, no suprise!.

Originally Posted by trice

Regulars do not require an invitation to be in any part of the US. The government can send them here or there as it wills, and that would certainly be true of Federal property such as Harper's Ferry (example: Governor Letcher did not request any US Regulars at Harpers Ferry in 1861, but some were sent there anyway). The governor may, of course, request their use to help with a crisis.

Shame about Kansas then in Nov 1855 when 2500 men fought each other while the regulars stood at the state line awaiting orders from the Pierce adminstartion to enter and prevent the bloodshed, who were waiting for an invite to do so from the then Gov, which never came, all those dead, and regulars not being sent into prevent it, the Territoryswere US propert regulated by Congress right?.
The posse comitas acts does not allow the pres on his own authority to send or use the US Armed forces against the civil poulation, he must gain Congresional allowance prior to the event, or have been asked in by a state gov or legisture, now i know that was from the reconstruction period, but as i understand it, regulars and Militia require an invite in, but am willing to be persuaded otherwise, its not a point of law im familiar with but assume from opther reading, the crisis is why the pres can act for 30 days without state requests under the militia act amendments, but by lincons intpretation the crises could be simply voteing the wrong way, not at all what the amendment was introduced to cover.
Im fairly sure also that Letcher asked them in on the 17th when he mobolised Militia as well, and 29th to get Regulars back from Ft Monroe after lee downgraded it to a riot in his report, and they returned to that post, along with Lees report on numbers of VA troops raised and equipped during May and at other times in in Freemansd bio. Why, if as you suggest, this is not required by law, does Letcher request troops and then requst them to leave only to ask them back?. A Burr almost siezed N Orleans in a coup because Congress refused to send federal or other states militia into LA to prevent him, later tried on treason and aquited on a technicality, another example, as is state milita/regs held outside NY City, because the Gov had not asked for them, when dispatched from AoP to quell the NY Draft riots, Seymour declares a state of insurection on Tues and requests federal troops, Stanton telgraphs that 5 Regiments are waiting for this request and are immidatly available for use, arrivingno later than miday on weds 15th. Rhode Island had its own civil war in 1842 and one side declared martial law to put down the other, USSC in Luther v Borden rulled a martial law is a form of Republican government when the courts are not functioning, compare to 1863 rulling that Martial law is not a form of Republican government where the courts are operating, but no federal troops were sent to RI because none were asked for by RI, so what was happening on the president watch here if he could send in the army to quell an insurection or civil war in a state?. lastly i recall in some of the Indian campaigns that regulars could not cross state lines in pursuit unless it was part of his theatre of operations and had authority to enter or not confimed prior to the event.
ill reuse this from Lincoln as it kind applies here as well, what are your thoughts on it, "What is 'invasion'? Would the marching of an army into South Carolina, without the consent of her people, and with hostile intent toward them be 'invasion'? I certainly think it would, and it would be 'coercion' also if South Carolinians were forced to submit." Replace SC with VA and i think its a good question to ask if its not invasion and coercion.

Originally Posted by trice

IIRR, according to the authority of the secession convention, they were supposed to submit their decision to a referendum before acting. Instead, they seized Federal property, fired upon US vessels, invited foreign forces into the state (hostile to the US), used state equipment to arm thousands of Confederates, concluded a military arrangement and made Richmond the capital of the Confederacy. To be kind, we can say they exceeded their authority and jumped the gun in a difficult situation.

Well yes, the CSA was born in chaos and never fully grew out of that condition. Freeman`s bio of Lee acounts that "over 10k" of long arms was issued to out of state militia, and 46k issued to Va Vol, and that VA had 51k in arms plus 20 battys of Guns, im not sure if that includes the 5k siezed at HF and issued or not, or that 5k was already held and in arms, but he comes up with 51k non the less by the time VA enters into the CSA. T Livermore has this from the OR on totals mustered into service July 61 CSA 112,040 USA 186,751 Jan 62 351,418 to 575,917, and on through to 65, not really intresting for our discussion, but it does remind me of how in the first year the disparity of numbers was the best it ever was for the CSA.
I think that kind of action was fairly common though, an any fast moving circamstance, the principle role of government is to protect the citizens, events were fast moving and the letcher undertook his primary role, but i am not familiar with the book thats caught your attention, which asks the question what role did the prescence of the other armed forces have in influencing the popular vote. Now thats a valid question, but needs to be seen in the big picture, when on 4 April VA elects delgates to decide on a secesion convention they elected Union or secesionist representatives, T jackson for instance to his wife, "For my own part i intend to vote for the Union candidate and ai desire every honourable means used for peace. I hope that the majority of the votes will be in favour of refering the action of the convention to the people for a final descion of the question involved, as this will give an additional safegaurd to all that we have done for ameciable adjustment of our difficultys. But if after all we have done and all that we can do for an honorable preservation of the Union, thee shall be a determination on the party of the free states to deprive of us our right which is the fair intpretation of the Constition, as gaurenteed to us by Federal corts, then i am in favour of secession." that convention narrowly stayed in the Union over the question, and did indeed vote to put it popular vote for ratification but was not required to do so, but i most strongly think it was the custom to do so in such conventions in VA, popular votes for ratification into the Union and secesion of land titles to create DC and the NWT and election of 56 all had them, but when the quastion becaome one of coercion, that was a different matter and every acount i have read points to a dramtic and profound sea change in the Unionsit section of Va, who became reltant confederates but staunch states rights advocates as well, hardly surprising, this was Va home of the Republican form of governmemt and consent to be governed.
Those same represenatives chose by ballot on the 4th of the month acuratly representated the general feeling of conditional Unionism in VA imo, as the question changed so did the vote, if anything those representatives elected at the beggining of the month, and you read who they were and how they voted along with the popular vote and a newspaper covering it here:-http://members.aol.com/jweaver300/grayson/vacwhp.htm if anything the elected delgates were underepresenting public opinion of secesion, which changed during the month, if the counts are acurate, and for them to be not due to intimidation would require interference at a huge number of polling stations in early and late dates in the month, a feat of some logistical undertaking when threatened by invasion and being otherwise emplyed in being mustered in the first place, training and being somewhere usfull rather than at the local polls or near to them.
Prof J Roberston who teaches in Va Tech wrote a bio of Jackson, recomended at VMI as the bio to have of Jackson and worth haveing a copy of, as its the richest in detail ive come across, writes the following regarding this period. page 211

A Richmond newspaper expressed the sentiments of the majority, "the old Union for which our fathers fought and bled has been willfully sacrificed by Black Republican despot, VA which led the van in the war of 76 now meets him on the threshold. She has been slow to act, but she will be slower to retrace her steps."
Rockbridge County largely Unionist on April 13 now became rabidly secessionist four days later, one citizen remarked "the divded spirits of Saturday were one on Weds" The Lexington paper agreed but was mor dramatic"When the olive branch of peace, fairness and equality was rejected in place therof the usurpers proclamation for her submission or sujectaion was issued, then did the Sov people of VA rise and throw defiance in the faces of those who sought her opresion and declare that she was right ought to be free.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by trice

But those very acts from April 17 to May 23 will change the options available to the voters. If secession is voted down, what happens? Will all those troops leave peacefully, since Virginia will effectively have just joined the Union side of the Civil War?

Those acts are dwarfed by the change of the question to one of coercion, the debates centers on that in the convention and nothing else is mentioned, and its pretty one sidded that conditional Unionism does not mean bending the knew to a dictatorship and that secesion was the prevaling opion of the majority, so any what if has to ignore the reality that once the quection changed to one of coercion, VA was as solid secesesh as your going to get and no possibility of a no vote exists, as borne out by the 4:1 popular vote ratificaton, nearly all the no vote came from WVa, who had their own secession sub plot in mind.
Does not a hyperthetical no vote just push it back to the resolution stage for the convention, a new set of resolutions are voted up or down, a new resolution of secesion from the Union, certainly containing at least the refusing to supply its milita, but not joining the CSA seems the most likly, should that occur, and pass the popular vote, that leaves them much like KY and MO, but why would they do this?, secesion to be effective requires the state to be viable as an entity afterwards, NYC wanted to secede and become a free port, but Va, is that really likly?, im doubtfull, unless it created further examples or was part of a concerted effort to create a neutral region of the upper South that either side was unwilling to push against, i dont recall ever reading of such a concept discussed though, nor do i consider it likly.

Originally Posted by trice

Hmm, to the extent that a ship intended to accompany the expedition to Charleston was diverted to Ft. Pickens, largely because of Seward and confusion in the Lincoln administration, that is so. However, Ft. Pickens was already held by US forces, and had been under siege by Confederate or state forces since January. There was a local truce there, so US forces were not being landed, but were sitting offshore. The truce had no effect upon the Confederates, who were simply not strong enough to take the fort without a great risk of failure and loss of life. Davis administration had considered and rejected attacking here. They attacked at Ft. Sumter because that was virtually a sure thing.

Are not all sieges a sure thing?, the only unknown is the time to efect the known outcome, and was not the opening of the Miss to traffic part of the deall, CSA states were buying everything not nailed down in Cinn and shipping it South for instance and Sherman later claimed that Cinn provided more sustanence to the South than did blockade runners through Charelston.

Originally Posted by trice

Baltimore at the time was widely known for mob violence, frequently referred to in newspapers as "Mobtown" during the 1850s. The troops, of course, had been assaulted before they fired. Four soldiers and twelve civilians were killed, and scores were injured.
In retrospect, the rioters were quite lucky they were facing raw militia and not trained or veteran troops. There would have been far more deaths in that case.

Yes the loss of life could have been much higher, restraint by the troops was remarkable. This also bears of the lawfull movement of troops through other states, Lincoln when confronted by Marlyand Gov telling him its ilegal to do so remarkes that they must come to the capital, they cannot fly or dig through the earth like moles, but does order future movememts to be as speddy as possible and to maximise sea lift whenever possible. Maryland Goverment goes away and does everything in its power to obstruct this movements.
Have you got H S Commagers Blue and Grey two Vol work?, it has a nice couple of first hand acounts on the passage of the toops, if not ill see if i can work the scanner and post them for you if they are new to you.

Originally Posted by trice

Davis and the Confederacy deliberately chose to strike with the secession of VA-TN-NC-AR in mind. Obviously they got what they wanted. The Confederate Sec. of State however, told them that attacking Ft. Sumter would be fatal, and it was in the end. Sometimes you are much better off not getting what you wish for.

Only to true, my judgmet is both Davis and Lincoln got what they wanted and it nearly drove Lincon mad, the consequences i mean, while Davis never once wavered in his conviction of being in the right, reagrdless of consequences.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by trice

But those very acts from April 17 to May 23 will change the options available to the voters. If secession is voted down, what happens? Will all those troops leave peacefully, since Virginia will effectively have just joined the Union side of the Civil War?

Those acts are dwarfed by the change of the question to one of coercion, the debates centers on that in the convention and nothing else is mentioned, and its pretty one sidded that conditional Unionism does not mean bending the knew to a dictatorship and that secesion was the prevaling opion of the majority, so any what if has to ignore the reality that once the quection changed to one of coercion, VA was as solid secesesh as your going to get and no possibility of a no vote exists, as borne out by the 4:1 popular vote ratificaton, nearly all the no vote came from WVa, who had their own secession sub plot in mind.
Does not a hyperthetical no vote just push it back to the resolution stage for the convention, a new set of resolutions are voted up or down, a new resolution of secesion from the Union, certainly containing at least the refusing to supply its milita, but not joining the CSA seems the most likly, should that occur, and pass the popular vote, that leaves them much like KY and MO, but why would they do this?, secesion to be effective requires the state to be viable as an entity afterwards, NYC wanted to secede and become a free port, but Va, is that really likly?, im doubtfull, unless it created further examples or was part of a concerted effort to create a neutral region of the upper South that either side was unwilling to push against, i dont recall ever reading of such a concept discussed though, nor do i consider it likly.

Originally Posted by trice

Hmm, to the extent that a ship intended to accompany the expedition to Charleston was diverted to Ft. Pickens, largely because of Seward and confusion in the Lincoln administration, that is so. However, Ft. Pickens was already held by US forces, and had been under siege by Confederate or state forces since January. There was a local truce there, so US forces were not being landed, but were sitting offshore. The truce had no effect upon the Confederates, who were simply not strong enough to take the fort without a great risk of failure and loss of life. Davis administration had considered and rejected attacking here. They attacked at Ft. Sumter because that was virtually a sure thing.

Are not all sieges a sure thing?, the only unknown is the time to efect the known outcome, and was not the opening of the Miss to traffic part of the deall, CSA states were buying everything not nailed down in Cinn and shipping it South for instance and Sherman later claimed that Cinn provided more sustanence to the South than did blockade runners through Charelston.

Originally Posted by trice

Baltimore at the time was widely known for mob violence, frequently referred to in newspapers as "Mobtown" during the 1850s. The troops, of course, had been assaulted before they fired. Four soldiers and twelve civilians were killed, and scores were injured.
In retrospect, the rioters were quite lucky they were facing raw militia and not trained or veteran troops. There would have been far more deaths in that case.

Yes the loss of life could have been much higher, restraint by the troops was remarkable. This also bears of the lawfull movement of troops through other states, Lincoln when confronted by Marlyand Gov telling him its ilegal to do so remarkes that they must come to the capital, they cannot fly or dig through the earth like moles, but does order future movememts to be as speddy as possible and to maximise sea lift whenever possible. Maryland Goverment goes away and does everything in its power to obstruct this movements.
Have you got H S Commagers Blue and Grey two Vol work?, it has a nice couple of first hand acounts on the passage of the toops, if not ill see if i can work the scanner and post them for you if they are new to you.

Originally Posted by trice

Davis and the Confederacy deliberately chose to strike with the secession of VA-TN-NC-AR in mind. Obviously they got what they wanted. The Confederate Sec. of State however, told them that attacking Ft. Sumter would be fatal, and it was in the end. Sometimes you are much better off not getting what you wish for.

Only to true, my judgmet is both Davis and Lincoln got what they wanted and it nearly drove Lincon mad, the consequences i mean, while Davis never once wavered in his conviction of being in the right, reagrdless of consequences.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by trice

Baltimore at the time was widely known for mob violence, frequently referred to in newspapers as "Mobtown" during the 1850s. The troops, of course, had been assaulted before they fired. Four soldiers and twelve civilians were killed, and scores were injured.
In retrospect, the rioters were quite lucky they were facing raw militia and not trained or veteran troops. There would have been far more deaths in that case.

Yes the loss of life could have been much higher, restraint by the troops was remarkable. This also bears of the lawfull movement of troops through other states, Lincoln when confronted by Marlyand Gov telling him its ilegal to do so remarkes that they must come to the capital, they cannot fly or dig through the earth like moles, but does order future movememts to be as speddy as possible and to maximise sea lift whenever possible. Maryland Goverment goes away and does everything in its power to obstruct this movements.
Have you got H S Commagers Blue and Grey two Vol work?, it has a nice couple of first hand acounts on the passage of the toops, if not ill see if i can work the scanner and post them for you if they are new to you.

Originally Posted by trice

Davis and the Confederacy deliberately chose to strike with the secession of VA-TN-NC-AR in mind. Obviously they got what they wanted. The Confederate Sec. of State however, told them that attacking Ft. Sumter would be fatal, and it was in the end. Sometimes you are much better off not getting what you wish for.

Only to true, my judgmet is both Davis and Lincoln got what they wanted and it nearly drove Lincon mad, the consequences i mean, while Davis never once wavered in his conviction of being in the right, reagrdless of consequences.