Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Ill look at my book again and get back to you by Monday.
"Joint Resolution of 25 July 1861, in which Congress declared, "This war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease."
or http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/m042961.htm
The declaration of war made against this Confederacy by Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States, in his proclamation issued on the 15th day of the present month
question in return, the legal basis for Lincoln was that the states had formed a new Un
ion without Congress approval, and was therfore unconstitional, where is congress voteing or debating on this to be found?. Since it would require 2/ of states to vote, and we know the number who had left and or declared neutrility, its a mathamatical imposibility to get that number to deny them to do so.
Lincoln could not declare war. The Constitution is clear that only Congress can declare war. Further, Lincoln's declaration is very carefully worded, as I noted, to show that it is an insurrection, not a war against a foreign power, by showing that it is a civil action in which the Marshalls (not the military) are unable to enforce the law.
As to the Congressional Joint Resolution, it is not a declaration of war. While it uses the term "war" it is not a declaration of war upon a foreign power and obviously uses the term "war" in its legal definition "Hostile contention by means of armed forces carried on between nations, states, or rulers, or between citizens in the same nation or state. Gitlow v. Kiely, D.C.N.Y, 44 F.2d 227, 233. Note that there was also not a formal declaration of war in Korea or Vietnam or Iraq I or II. Indeed, in 1861, the nation was "at war" but there had not been a formal declaration of war, because that would have recognized the legal status of the Confederate States.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
Lincoln could not declare war. The Constitution is clear that only Congress can declare war. Further, Lincoln's declaration is very carefully worded, as I noted, to show that it is an insurrection, not a war against a foreign power, by showing that it is a civil action in which the Marshalls (not the military) are unable to enforce the law.
Exactly one of the points, calling up the milita was what caused the second wave to secede as being unconstitional, and 2 more going neutral and 2 more disband their militai rather than comply. The law was working perfectly well, the courts were open and no marshal was not perfoming is duty.
Insurection in law is defined by a part of stste against the state, and requires the court of the legilsture to notify the preseident of such a thing before the POTUS can act on it, as expalined by D Webster to POTUS Jackson.
The differnce between a beligerant and an insurectionlist, is that you can one hang them without benifit of clergy or trial in 1860, the other has protection of law.
Insurectionlist taken at sea are pirates, beligerants taken at sea or land are pows.
Quote:
As to the Congressional Joint Resolution, it is not a declaration of war. While it uses the term "war" it is not a declaration of war upon a foreign power and obviously uses the term "war" in its legal definition "Hostile contention by means of armed forces carried on between nations, states, or rulers, or between citizens in the same nation or state. Gitlow v. Kiely, D.C.N.Y, 44 F.2d 227, 233. Note that there was also not a formal declaration of war in Korea or Vietnam or Iraq I or II. Indeed, in 1861, the nation was "at war" but there had not been a formal declaration of war, because that would have recognized the legal status of the Confederate States.
And thats the nonly reason why Licoln refused to consider it a war, when it was in fact but not in name, because then congress with its radicals would determine the fate of the states post war, as per whow they tried to do anyway, ie rule them directly by mil ocupation by right of mil conquest as the ssttes had committed stste suicide and no lonmger had the nconstitional rights in place, not the office of the president who could and would attempt to keep the fiction of there not being a secesion in the first palce, that war over it was taking place, and that they were all americans with constional rights. Lincoln, from the most extreme CSA pov was a bad president, but had Wade or others had there way, he would have appeared to have been there best friend in comparison. The WBTS was not just amil struggle replaced with civil and politcial struglle, between North and South it wasa war between extremist in the Republican party and modertes like Lincoln over what the war was to achieve.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
One thing at a time: So then you are conceeding that you were incorrect and Congress did not declare war against the Confederate States of America?
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
One thing at a time: So then you are conceeding that you were incorrect and Congress did not declare war against the Confederate States of America?
No. Meerly i cant trace where the books refernce comes a from to support myslef, because its not refernced.
Congres waged war, Lincoln declared it when he called up the militia, and my post with the date cites nothing, meerly claims it so cant track it down.
My thinking is that when congress retrocativly apporoved the pres actions, that would cover the DOW refernce, but have not looked it up to see if thats where the refernce comes from.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Insurection in law is defined by a part of stste against the state, and requires the court of the legilsture to notify the preseident of such a thing before the POTUS can act on it, as expalined by D Webster to POTUS Jackson.
Daniel Webster went on record denying the President's constitutional authority to do precisely what Lincoln would do in 1861: "The President has no authority to blockade Charleston; the President has no authority to employ military force, till he shall be required to do so by civil authorities. His duty is to cause the laws to be executed. His duty is to support the civil authority."
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Daniel Webster went on record denying the President's constitutional authority to do precisely what Lincoln would do in 1861: "The President has no authority to blockade Charleston; the President has no authority to employ military force, till he shall be required to do so by civil authorities. His duty is to cause the laws to be executed. His duty is to support the civil authority."
No, that is not what you had written, you had written:
Insurection in law is defined by a part of stste against the state, and requires the court of the legilsture to notify the preseident of such a thing before the POTUS can act on it, (who exactly is the 'court of the legilsture'? by the way?)
as expalined by D Webster to POTUS Jackson (Those civil authorities you speak of is Congress, Jackson asked for a Force Bill which became moot because they compromised on the tariff.).
__________________ The United States forever!
Last edited by ole; 06-13-2008 at 05:33 PM.
Reason: Just a few extraneous comments excised. What's good for the goose....
Daniel Webster went on record denying the President's constitutional authority to do precisely what Lincoln would do in 1861: "The President has no authority to blockade Charleston; the President has no authority to employ military force, till he shall be required to do so by civil authorities. His duty is to cause the laws to be executed. His duty is to support the civil authority."
The situations are not equivalent. When Lincoln declared the blockade and called out the Militia, the US had already been assaulted by an enemy. Beyond doubt, it was Lincoln's responsibility to defend the nation, and only his means might be questioned.
With the Congress out of session, Lincoln used the 1792 Militia Act (as modified) to call upon the states for troops. This is all he could do in the way of raising new forces. There is no doubt of his authority to call for the Militia or use military force in this situation. One might question whether or not this was an insurrection (no "right of secession" exists) or an attack by a foreign enemy ("right of secession" exists). Either way, the President is obliged to do his duty and protect the nation. Once the combat begins, Lincoln might be regarded as derelict in his duty if he did something else.
No such condition applies to Jackson, Webster, South Carolina and the situation in 1832.
Webster did deliver a great speech, though, and this is from one of his more famous ones. I note that the section you have quoted is from the middle of a very long paragraph. The rest might shed greater light on what Webster meant. For example, the next few sentences go like this (blue italics):
=====
...The President has no authority to blockade Charleston; the President has no authority to employ military force, till he shall be duly required so to do, by law, and by the civil authorities. His duty is to cause the laws to be executed. His duty is to support the civil authority. His duty is, if the laws be resisted, to employ the military force of the country, if necessary, for their support and execution; but to do all this in compliance only with law, and with decisions of the tribunals. If, by any ingenious devices, those who resist the laws escape from the reach of judicial authority, as it is now provided to be exercised, it is entirely competent to Congress to make such new provisions as the exigency of the case may demand. These provisions undoubtedly would be made. With a constitutional and efficient head of the government, with an administration really and truly in favor of the Constitution, the country can grapple with nullification. By the force of reason, by the progress of enlightened opinion, by the natural, genuine patriotism of the country, and by the steady and well-sustained operations of law, the progress of disorganization may be successfully checked, and the Union maintained. ...
=====
Clearly, Webster acknowledged that the President had the authority, "the duty" as he put it, to employ the military to enforce the laws, if necessary. Yet you chose to leave that sentence off, it appears, or perhaps did not know it was there.
This is why so many quotes are used out of context, without the full surrounding text. It is more convenient. It is easier that way to make sound bites. The entirety of what the speaker meant is usually not quite so easy to digest as a few carefully selected lines.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Daniel Webster went on record denying the President's constitutional authority to do precisely what Lincoln would do in 1861: "The President has no authority to blockade Charleston; the President has no authority to employ military force, till he shall be required to do so by civil authorities. His duty is to cause the laws to be executed. His duty is to support the civil authority."
A little further on in the same speech we find Daniel Webster's position on a state leaving the Union:
=====
But suppose, Sir, there was less hope than there is, would that consideration weaken the force of our obligations? Are we at a post which we are at liberty to desert when it becomes difficult to hold it? May we fly at the approach of danger? Does our fidelity to the Constitution require no more of us than to enjoy its blessings, to bask in the prosperity which it has shed around us and our fathers? and are we at liberty to abandon it in the hour of its peril, or to make for it but a faint and heartless struggle, for the want of encouragement and the want of hope? Sir, if no State come to our succor, if everywhere else the contest should be given up, here let it be protracted to the last moment. Here, where the first blood of the Revolution was shed, let the last effort be made for that which is the greatest blessing obtained by the Revolution, a free and united government. Sir, in our endeavors to maintain our existing forms of government, we are acting not for ourselves alone, but for the great cause of constitutional liberty all over the globe. We are trustees holding a sacred treasure, in which all the lovers of freedom have a stake. Not only in revolutionized France, where there are no longer subjects, where the monarch can no longer say, I am the state; not only in reformed England, where our principles, our institutions, our practice of free government, are now daily quoted and commended; but in the depths of Germany, also, and among the desolated fields and the still smoking ashes of Poland, prayers are uttered for the preservation of our union and happiness. We are surrounded, Sir, by a cloud of witnesses. The gaze of the sons of liberty, everywhere, is upon us, anxiously, intently, upon us. They may see us fall in the struggle for our Constitution and government, but Heaven forbid that they should see us recreant.
At least, Sir, let the star of Massachusetts be the last which shall be seen to fall from heaven, and to plunge into the utter darkness of disunion. Let her shrink back, let her hold others back if she can, at any rate, let her keep herself back, from this gulf, full at once of fire and of blackness; yes, Sir, as far as human foresight can scan, or human imagination fathom, full of the fire and the blood of civil war, and of the thick darkness of general political disgrace, ignominy, and ruin. Though the worst may happen that can happen, and though she may not be able to prevent the catastrophe, yet let her maintain her own integrity, her own high honor, her own unwavering fidelity, so that with respect and decency, though with a broken and a bleeding heart, she may pay the last tribute to a glorious, departed, free Constitution.
=====
They needed a few more people speaking like that in the South in 1860, and a few less Fire-Eaters.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
jEFFERSON dAVIS - the rise & FALL OF THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT
Clearly, from what is historically known of Webster, it is unlikely that he would have quibbled over when Lincoln got authorization from Congress to do what was obviously necessary, to preserve the Union from its hour of peril.
After all if he favored Jackson's Force Act against nullification, what would he not have favored against secession?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
