unable to post in Sumpter thread, temp holding patter

[Hanny]

haveing trouble getting posts to stick today, anyone have the same problems?, is it a broweser thing?, if a moderator can paste this back in the proper thread Ft Sumpter i would be thankfull.

[quote=Unionblue]
Lincoln could have directed Fox, Seward, Cameron, fill in blank here, to stuff Sumter with hardtack and saltpork and in what way did this constitute a threat to the South? Even if an extra 200 green, hardly-trained troops managed to be off-loaded into the fort, again, where was the military threat? As you said, 'peaceable secession' had taken place, South Carolina and others had declared it so. But no military move against any territory taken over by those seceded states had been touched. Why was it so important for the South to fire on Ft. Sumter? Even if hell was freezing over, would not it have been better for the South to just wait?[/qoute]
Well there was the plan to stop and detain all ships and collect the USA Revenue from them, using Sumpter as one of the bases, thats a threat of some significance, and an important part of "its about the economy stupid" argument as one of the causes of the war. At the conclusion of the cabinet meeting LIncoln also had orders cut to place USA naval warships to be be at the disposal of the revenue service to collect taxes of shore as part of his if they dont fire policy, to commence collecting imort taxes from ships as the enter the Union, also this presents its not about ceorcion of the state of SC, but inforcing the revenue laws of the Union, for which we require the Forts, not to launch attacks on states from, (unless that becomes a really good idea) but to enforce the revenue laws as i promised at the innaugrial to do, so the threat was also one of economic strangulation instead of the 20% or so lower tariff free market as expected. Thats also a threat of some consideration.
No he could not do as you suggest, because he could not convince them to do so and did it on his authority because no consensus to do this existed in cabinet is the answer to why the chain of command was not followed and why Lincolns name appears ofn the orders and not the lawfull chain of command as is required by mil law to make an order lawfull, requiring you to follow it. Further the Powhatan, under the command of Lieutenant David D. Porter, sailed under disguise. In a letter to the Secretary of the Navy dated 11 May 1861, Lincoln personally assumed the responsibility "for any apparent or real irregularity... in connection with that vessel." Not only was her name painted out, as Captain Montgomery C. Meigs mentioned in a letter to William Seward, but she was flying the flag of Great Britain "so that she deceived those who had known her." All this decption just breed distrust of his message that the fleet would only deliver supplies, not evacuate as had been originally agreed and was expected.
Its the posistion of the new adminstartion that secession can not exist in the first place thats missing from you line of thought, Lincon denied it could exist, (part of Republican party manifesto) that makes them insurectlists acording to him and treated as such, he refused to treat with the Southern delegates and broke the legal agreement that Buchanon had put into place because thats how he percieved them, the deep South had seceded on the premise that the future government had fallen into hostile hands and could not be tusted, the existing one acepted this posistion while not liking it, it acepted the AG of the USA opinion that secesion was not unconstitional and that the law of the land did not grant the President the lawfull right to use force to prevent it, nor use the 1795 Militia act to do anything about it, Lincoln takes office gets the same opinion and sacks the AG and apoints one who says the oposite, just as VA had passed an ordinace of secesion in 1856, if Republicans are elected we shall secede, because we cannot have Union with such a party, and embarkes on an armaments procurement spending spree, VMI getting up to date Arty to play with for instance.
Lincoln sending a fleet to Sumpter proved the deep Souths point, and since they had been waiting quite long for a promised evacuation, instead they got "I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only; and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms or ammunition, will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort." they then acted, they had been waiting since 15 Feb for Sumpter to be evacuated as agreed by Seward to Campbell who told Campbell the order has been made to evacuate. Just as Madison said you could, because you were Sov states in vol compact. Even Republicans were not of one mind on secesion, "Who is the judge in the last resort of the violation of the Constitution of the United States by the enactment of a law? Who is the final arbiter, the General Government or the States in their sovereignty? Why, sir, to yield that point is to yield up all the rights of the States to protect their own citizens, and to consolidate this government into a miserable despotism." B Wade from the floor on Congress, and earlier "If they [the Southern people] do not feel interested in upholding this Union — if it really entrenches on their rights — if it endangers their institutions to such an extent that they cannot feel secure under it — if their interests are violently assailed by the means of this Union, I am not one of those who expect that they will long continue under it. I am not one of those who ask them to continue in such a Union. It would be doing violence to the platform of the party to which I belong. We have adopted the old Declaration of Independence as the basis of our political movements, which declares that any people, when their Government ceases to protect their rights, when it is so subverted from the true purposes of government as to oppress them, have the right to recur to fundamental principles, and if need be, to destroy the Government under which they live, and to erect upon its ruins another conducive to their welfare. I hold that they have this right. I will not blame any people for exercising it, whenever they think the contingency has come. I certainly shall be an advocate of that same doctrine whenever I find that the principles of this Government have become so oppressive to the section to which I belong, that a free people ought not longer to endure it.... I hope the Union will continue forever. I believe it may continue forever. I see nothing at present which I think should dissolve it; but if other gentlemen see it, I say again that they have the same interest in maintaining this Union, in my judgment, as we of the North have. If they think they have not, be it so. You cannot forcibly hold men in the Union; for the attempt to do so, it seems to me, would subvert the first principles of the Government under which we live."
James Madison, in Elliott, ibid., pages 114-115
"Who are parties to it? The people — but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties: were it, as the gentleman [Henry] asserts, a consolidated government, the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment, and as a majority have adopted it already, the remaining States would be bound by the act of the majority, even if they unanimously reprobated it: were it such a government as is suggested, it would be now binding on the people of this State [Virginia], without having had the privilege of deliberating upon it; but, sir, no State is bound by it, as it is, without its own consent. Should all the States adopt it, it will be then a government established by the thirteen States of America, not through the intervention of the Legislatures, but by the people at large. In this particular respect the distinction between the existing and proposed governments is very material. The existing system has been derived from the dependent, derivative authority of the Legislatures of the States, whereas this is derived from the superior power of the people."
James Madison, in Elliott, ibid., pages 549
(the resolution was on who could decalre statues unconstitional)
"the reolution presuposes that dangerous powers may not only be usurped and executed by other Departments but that the judiciary departmenet may also excercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constition, and consequently that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constition, to Judge for themselves wether the compact has been dangerously violated as well as by another, by the judiciary as well as the executive or by the legilature."
Madison, Federalist Papers, Number XXXIX.
"The Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals comprising one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State — the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution will not be a national, but a federal act.
That it will be a federal, and not a national act, as these terms are understood by objectors, the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States, as evidences of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these has been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its voluntary act."

"When resort can be had to no common superior, the parties to the compact must themselves be the rightful judges, whether the bargain has been pursued or violated."

31st May, 1787, Madison declared that "the use of force against a State would be more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked, as a dissolution of all previous compacts; a union of States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction." Again, on the 8th June, he observed: "Any government formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the States, would prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress."
In one of the debates in the New York State Convention, Hamilton made use of these words: "To coerce a State would be one of the maddest projects ever devised. No State would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another.
Madison during nullification.
"that acts of Congress in violation of the Constition are absolutly void is an undeniable posistion. it does not whoever consist with respect and forebearance due from a confedertae State towards the genersl government to fly in open resistance upon any infraction of the Constition. The mode and energy of the oposistion should always conform to the nature of the vioaltion, the intention of the authors and the extent of the injury inflicted and the dertermination to persist in it and the dabger of delay. But in the case of deliberate dangerous and palpable infractions of the Constition, effecting the Sovreignity of a state and the libertys of its people, it is not only the right but the duty of a state to interpose its authority for their protection, in a manner best calculated to secure that end. When emergencys occur which are either beyond the reach of judicial tribunals, or too pressing to admit to delay incident to their forms, States which have no common unmpire, must be their own judges and execute their own descisions. It will thus be proper for the severall States to await the ultimmate disposal of the obnoxouse measures recommended by the Sec Of war, or pending befor Congress and so as to use their power acordingto the character thses measures shall finally asume, as effectivlly to protect their own Sovriegnty and the rights and libertys of their citizens."
J Marshall
"We are threatened with the loss of our liberties by possible abuse of power, notwistanding the maxim that those who give power may take it away. It is the people who give power and can take it back. Who shall restrain them?they are the master who give it and of whom their servents hold it."

Jefferson of course would have agreed with Madison.
"Now, if a partnership between persons is purely voluntary, and subject to the will of its members severally, how much more so is one between sovereign States? and it follows that, just as each, separately, in the exercise of its sovereign will, entered the Union, so may it separately, in the exercise of that will, withdraw therefrom. And further, the Constitution being a compact, to which the States are parties, "having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode of measure and redress," as declared by Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison in the celebrated resolutions of '98, and the right of secession irresistibly follows."

[Hanny]

Just some Madison for you to pick at, ponder, on, or ignore, while i get back to the point, Lincoln had turned back the clock to secesion itself, and was starting over, he did not acept it to be be the case and was moving acordingly, and regardless of the de facto posistion, intended to end it. Davis saw that clearly by then.
But what would be a likly outcome if no further secesions occur, and Sumpter slumbers on unresolved, and no use of force, is the deep South a viable economic and political entity?, does it pose an economic rival that will dramaticly effect Union imports/exports and so on, well who knows, but it certainly looks like one to me.
Lincoln probably saw an economic threat and a future political threat (states leaving opens the door to states moving between either Union as and when it suits them, and issues with mainnting the Pacific region in the Union) and not much of a mil threat, and concluded mil action is the answer, Davis probably came to the same conclusion but from a different calculus.

[Hanny]

also VA secesion troops at polling station thread

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.

[unionblue]

Hanny,

In reference to your post #1, what plan had Ft. Sumter in which it was to be used to stop and detain all ships and collect the USA Revenue? Please indicate a varifiable source for this. As far as I can tell, NO effort was made to collect tariffs by Lincoln until this crisis was resolved.

And frankly, I simply find no evidence, historical or otherwise, that it had a thing to do with the tariff. That 'dog don't hunt', it doesn't even wake up to leave the dog house. The only "It's about the economy, stupid" argument I can detect, is the economy of slavery.

As for your view that Lincoln didn't follow the chain of command, perhaps the idea that there were still many in that chain willing to sell out their C-in-C to warn the South might have had a little to do with that. Maybe between the resignations and back door manuvers of Seward, Lincoln felt he had to take charge to make things happen. After all, if the President reaches past certain parts of the chain of command, he has that right. Look at FDR when he pick Ike to head up OverLord and the invasion of Europe. Harry Truman did not have that plaque 'The Buck Stops Here' for no reason.

No, I think there is a lot of historical 'smoke' in your post, which tends to obscure the real factual fire. The fort had to be fired on by Davis, no matter if any or no action happened in the fort. He could not appear weak and he could not afford to wait as many were having second thoughts about secession and the fire they had jumped into. Talk about your pressure to 'do something' Davis had to do something to induce the border states to jump off the fence and keep his own deep south in line. So he ordered the fort fired on. And the rest is left up to debate boards like this one.

And I have a few quotes of my own.

"But if on a temporary superiorty of the one party, the other is to resort to a scission of the Union, no federal government can ever exist. If to rid ourselves of the present rule of Massachusets & Connecticut we break the Union, will the evil stop there? Suppose the N. England States alone cut off, will our natures be changed? are we not men still to the south of that, & with all the passions of men? Immediately we shall see a Pennsylvania & a Virginia party arise in the residuary confederacy, and the public mind will be distracted with the same party spirit. What a game, too, will the one party have in their Northern neighbors. If we reduce our Union to Virginia & N. Carolina, immediately the conflict will be established between the representatives of these two States, and they will end by breaking into their simple units."--Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, June 4, 1798.

And a few more from James Madison, decrying secession/nullification.

In a letter to Nicholas Trist, Dec. 23, 1832.

"It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them." The entire letter can be viewed here:

http://www.constitution.org/jm/18321223_trist.htm

In a letter to Daniel Webster, March 15, 1833.

"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."

The entire letter may be viewed here:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found.../v1ch3s14.html

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Hanny]

UnionBlue

Originally Posted by Union Blue

In reference to your post #1, what plan had Ft. Sumter in which it was to be used to stop and detain all ships and collect the USA Revenue? Please indicate a varifiable source for this. As far as I can tell, NO effort was made to collect tariffs by Lincoln until this crisis was resolved.

Its in all the good acounts of the period, "Lincoln and the first shot" R Current, Adams " When in the Course of Human Events" MCpherson BCF page 263 refers to it, as do diarys of the key men in cabinett refer to the specifics of the paln, Welles, Blair etc. Firstly its what Lincoln promises to do in the inugrial, collect the taxes, ( 2 March 1861. Under this tariff, duties began at an average of 37%, compared to 10% in the CSA) to do this is deciced on the specifics in the cabinet meetings, and then it went to the AG who advised it was lawfull to collect the tariff on ships off shore, and then lincoln gave the order to do so to the navy.
I dont know what you have on your bookshelf, but anything that dealls in detail with Sumpter ought to contain refernces to the severall meetings in Cabinett, and the last one of these is where the of shore tarrif colection is discussed and adopted, BCF page 272 list further books that conatin these, although they are looking at motives and purposes of the supply to sumpter plans.

Originally Posted by Union Blue

And frankly, I simply find no evidence, historical or otherwise, that it had a thing to do with the tariff. That 'dog don't hunt', it doesn't even wake up to leave the dog house. The only "It's about the economy, stupid" argument I can detect, is the economy of slavery.

Then your not familiar with Calhoun who saw that not enough states would secceded over the Triff question, and spent the rest of his life finding out what they would do over, and uniting enough on it, the answer was threats to slavery which would unite enough behind SC to make secesion viable, but the motive is a different tariff policy.
Then your unaware of content of the conventions on secesion, the tarif was certainly a strong motivation for secesion at them, tarif is mentioned in the causes of secesion docccuments and the reason for calling the secesion ordinaces in the first place, and was in some regions of states, the only motive for secesion, SC seceded over slavery, so it could adopt a Tariff more in keeping with its socio economic condition.
The wonder is not if you will have secesion, but which states will ally against others and over what, and when.

Originally Posted by Union Blue

As for your view that Lincoln didn't follow the chain of command, perhaps the idea that there were still many in that chain willing to sell out their C-in-C to warn the South might have had a little to do with that. Maybe between the resignations and back door manuvers of Seward, Lincoln felt he had to take charge to make things happen. After all, if the President reaches past certain parts of the chain of command, he has that right. Look at FDR when he pick Ike to head up OverLord and the invasion of Europe. Harry Truman did not have that plaque 'The Buck Stops Here' for no reason.

Not applicable in the case at hand, the orders were not legal and not followed, because the chain of command was not lawfull. Your appying a good argument to an example that does not warrant that expalantion. See BCF page 268 for this specific instance.

Originally Posted by Union Blue

No, I think there is a lot of historical 'smoke' in your post, which tends to obscure the real factual fire. The fort had to be fired on by Davis, no matter if any or no action happened in the fort. He could not appear weak and he could not afford to wait as many were having second thoughts about secession and the fire they had jumped into. Talk about your pressure to 'do something' Davis had to do something to induce the border states to jump off the fence and keep his own deep south in line. So he ordered the fort fired on. And the rest is left up to debate boards like this one.

Odd how your post is fact free while noticing my facts are smoke instead. We can do better than that surely?.

Originally Posted by Union Blue

And I have a few quotes of my own.

Lets see what they say, so private letters late in life, nothing from the Elliots where he expalins the right of secesion then, or even from the VA ratification and expalining the right to secceded during that as well.

Originally Posted by Union Blue

It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol 2, with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force, and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion, and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.

He starts with a reffernce to the Old Congress ie the AOC, in that compact the use of force as a right is an implied right by compact, which it was, but not so under the Constition.
Secesion at will is in the public mind because Madison and Jeerson put it there in the first place.(It appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but . . . that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme
authority in each State -- the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution will not be a national but a federal act . . . Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. Madison)
The authority to grant Congress the constitional right to coerce compliance on any member of the state had been twice defeated in the PA debate, Madison voted to deny this right btw.
Secesion at will is Madisons biggest problem, after describbing that secesion is a atribute of being Sov it follows that it can be used at will by the Sov, Madison had spent 30 odd years expalining that to the public, but by 1836 had come to a different understanding, in his last work he adopts a different posistion, that nullification and secesion are not answers to the question.
Madison did not accept that nullifiocation over taxes was constitional, because every society requires taxes to function, the remedy was an easment of the effect of the tariffs, because while the tariff was uniform its effect was not and this had created the problem and required an easment, no one has the right to nullification over taxes, no one likes taxes but society cannot function without them is wher Madison is comming from, madison is not explaing no right of secesion or nullification only that a high tax is not suffiecent cause to excercise the right of secesion.
Another argument is to be found here, 1830, Senator Robert Y. Hayne, Carolina's champion in the famous Webster-Hayne Debate, sent Madison a copy of his speeches. Hayne obviously expected the author of the Virginia
Resolutions to endorse the doctrine of nullification. In response, Madison adopted totally different ground. He disapproved of the notion that a single state could nullify any statute which was not so oppressive as to absolve that state of all responsibility to the union. He added, "[T]he Constitution of the U.S. . . . must be its own interpreter according to its text and the facts of the case. The charter was that of one people and could not be negated but by the whole people."
He next stated that the supremacy clause governed the question; if that failed, impeachment might be tried, then amendment. Madison closed with the incongruous statement that the failure of all these remedies would entitle a state to resort to the law of self-preservation, but that that was a right the government need not respect.