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.
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.).
yes that waht i wrote, insurection is stiill defined like that, and was what Webster exaplined that jackson could not do as lincoln did, it being ilegal to do so, no seperation of powers when POTUS can define, regulated and enforce what is isnsurection.
__________________ "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?
heres when Congres ratified lincolns actions.
July 13 1861 Congress enacted a statute "Approving and legalising and makeing valid all acts, proclamations and orders off the president, as if they been done under the express authority and direction of the conghress of the United states.
__________________ "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
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.
US AG opinion was that POTUS had no such right, second outgoing POTUS said he had no such right, third, to use such a right requires the imediate recal of congress.
Quote:
...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.
webster describes legal requirements here
Quote:
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. ...
Witha an expalantion of what that means, and since he and calhoun go onto debate the nature of the constition and if itsa comapct, and Calhoun wins the resolution, mand webster becomes a user of secesion, its clear who won what. =====
Quote:
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.
No youve slaghtered what he ment and said, he told Jackson he had to get a force act, jackson would do so, and could not call up the militia on his own authority, when he got the legisltive rights to use force he couold, but he could not recongnise nullification and act on it without direction and authorisation to do so.
Please stop murdering history and distorting whats clear to any reader.
Quote:
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
nope, the entire speeach is as i quoted, and since jackson sougght a force bill and did not declare a legal blockade iyts clear your the one unable to read and comprehend what webstewr said, and the effect it had, when he had the force bill, it is thye duty to act on it, but not before, that would be a crimeinal action.
__________________ "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
jEFFERSON dAVIS - the rise and fall of the confederate government
Unfortunately, Webster nor Jackson faced SECESSION in progress.
Buchanan and the AG had their opinion, but as President in the midst of an ongoing crisis, Lincoln had another opinion. If it is a choice between the opinion of Lincoln or Buchanan and his AG, Hanny is perfectly free to do so, but the Congress and the Majority of the citizems of the USA, at the time, decided, Lincoln was more correct than the outgoing President and AG, as was Their right.
It was then and is now obvious that by ingenious devices, those who resisted the law had escaped from the reach of Judicial Authority and that, as per Webster, The Congress reviewed and approved Lincolns decisions. At no time was Lincoln outside the authority of the Constitution or Congress.
Lincoln had called Congress back into session as soon as could be reasonably expected, and knew he would have to have Congress' approval for his actions and was as prepared to accept their decisions as Jackson was concerning the much less threatening Nulification Crisis (in 1860, there was no Crisis, there was War)
Given the factual circumstances of the events of 1860-1861, Webster (primacy of the Union, Under the Constitution) would hardlyh have been with those who voted against Lincoln's actions.
As I previously have noted, if he favored the Force Act for Nullification, what would Webster have Not favored against Secession?
There clearly can be an insurrection against a state and against the United States. This is the lesson we learn from the Whiskey Rebellion.
The Constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 8. gives
power to congress " to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
By the act of Congress of the 28th of February, 1795, 1
Story s L. U. S. 389, it is provided: 1. That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion, from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States to call forth such number, of the militia of the state, or states, most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary
to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders, for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as be shall think proper. And in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states,
as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.
That, whenever the laws of the United States shall
be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States to call forth the militia of such state, or of any other state or
states, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration
of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of congress.
US AG opinion was that POTUS had no such right, second outgoing POTUS said he had no such right, third, to use such a right requires the imediate recal of congress.
No, no, and no. You are comparing apples and oranges. I am pretty sure you know it, or should.
The actions by Lincoln you are describing (calling out the Militia, declaring a blockade of Southern ports) are AFTER a military attack upon a US fort. The opinions you are refering to are before that and do not even attempt to address the issue of a President's responsibility to defend the nation against attack, whether from without or within. That DUTY is clear and unmistakable in the Constitution and US law, as has already been pointed out to you by others. Lincoln had little choice.
As to recalling Congress, Fort Sumter was attacked on April 12-13 and Lincoln issued a call for Congress to return for an emergency session on April 15th. Just how much quicker is it you think he should have acted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
webster describes legal requirements here
Witha an expalantion of what that means, and since he and calhoun go onto debate the nature of the constition and if itsa comapct, and Calhoun wins the resolution, mand webster becomes a user of secesion, its clear who won what.
Your meaning is unclear. Please explain what you intend to say here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
No youve slaghtered what he ment and said, he told Jackson he had to get a force act, jackson would do so, and could not call up the militia on his own authority, when he got the legisltive rights to use force he couold, but he could not recongnise nullification and act on it without direction and authorisation to do so.
Please stop murdering history and distorting whats clear to any reader.
Hanny, what I did was point out what Webster himself said. It is not what you wish and imagine, no matter what you say.
He is also very clearly describing a different situation than what Lincoln faced in April of 1861. Jackson did not face a South Carolina that had seized Federal bases and property, or fired upon a Federal fort and soldiers. Lincoln did. That changes everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
nope, the entire speeach is as i quoted, and since jackson sougght a force bill and did not declare a legal blockade iyts clear your the one unable to read and comprehend what webstewr said, and the effect it had, when he had the force bill, it is thye duty to act on it, but not before, that would be a crimeinal action.
You are wrong on this, Hanny. You are trying to distort history here in order to claim a violent and aggressive Southern secession movement in 1861 is somehow identical to the South Carolina of the 1832 Nullification effort. Look at the facts and straighten out your own logical difficulties.
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.
Buchanan and the AG had their opinion, but as President in the midst of an ongoing crisis, Lincoln had another opinion. If it is a choice between the opinion of Lincoln or Buchanan and his AG, Hanny is perfectly free to do so, but the Congress and the Majority of the citizems of the USA, at the time, decided, Lincoln was more correct than the outgoing President and AG, as was Their right.
No such evidence to support you exists, Abe was a minority Pres, and teh majority do not have a right to intprete the law, thats what the US AG is for, that what the SC is for, not public opion.
Quote:
It was then and is now obvious that by ingenious devices, those who resisted the law had escaped from the reach of Judicial Authority and that, as per Webster,
#Nope, jackson told Webster he had no descrition in the matter, webster told him he had no authority to declare a blockade or to use force by calling up then militia, the authority to do a thing is concurrent with the intent of that act, ie to call up the militia is lawfull only if the intent is to perform what the act itself was enacted to cover, otherwise POTUS can call up the militai and goto war at will with it.
Quote:
The Congress reviewed and approved Lincolns decisions. At no time was Lincoln outside the authority of the Constitution or Congress.
Yes he was and he said he was.And congres ex post fact ratification of hsi ilegal actions simply copmpounds the ilegality.
Quote:
Lincoln had called Congress back into session as soon as could be reasonably expected, and knew he would have to have Congress' approval for his actions and was as prepared to accept their decisions as Jackson was concerning the much less threatening Nulification Crisis (in 1860, there was no Crisis, there was War)
Given the factual circumstances of the events of 1860-1861, Webster (primacy of the Union, Under the Constitution) would hardlyh have been with those who voted against Lincoln's actions.
Webster was clear to Jackson, POTUS could not declare a blockade nor call up the militia to coerce a state. since the cicamstances are exaactly the same, there cannot be any doubt as to Webster position.
Quote:
As I previously have noted, if he favored the Force Act for Nullification, what would Webster have Not favored against Secession?
The point is when Jackson said he could do it as a right and that he had no discrition, Webster explained those rights were not those of POTUS but of Congress, and that POTUS duty was to act acording to the laws, not intprete tham for himslef, since Jackson did as webster pointed out, its clear who agred with who.
__________________ "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
[quote=cw1865;89629] And in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,)
Since neither the Gov or the legislkature notified POTUS of an insurection, the point is clear, no authourity to call up the militia.
Quote:
That, whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States to call forth the militia of such state,
Since no law was being obstructed, no Aauthority existed for POTUS to call up the militia, when he did so, this is what happened.
I have only to say, that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished
to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they
have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern states, and a
requisition made upon me for such an object-an object, in my judgment,
not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795-
will not be complied with. You-have chosen to inaugurate civil war,
and having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the
administration has exhibited toward the south. (Governor Letcher,
Virginia)
There can be, I apprehend, no doubt that these men are intended to
make war upon the seceded states. Your requisition, in my judgment,
is illegal, unconstitutional, and revolutionary in its objects, inhuman
and diabolical, and can not be complied with. Not one man will the
State of Missouri furnish to carry on sucQan unholy crusade. (Governor
Jackson, Missouri
Your dispatch is received; and, if genuine, which its extraordinary
character leads me to doubt, I have to say in reply, that I regard the levy
of troops made by the administration for the purpose of subjugating the
states of the South as in violation of the Constitution, and a usurpation
of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the
country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get
no troops from North Carolina. (Governor Ellis, North Carolina)
Your dispatch is received. I say emphatically that Kentucky will furnish
no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern
states. (Governor Magoffin, Kentucky)
Tennessee will not furnish a single man for coercion, but fifty thousand,
if necessary, for the defense of our rights, or those of our Southern
brethren. (Governor Harris, Tennessee)
In answer to your requisition for troops from Arkansas, to subjugate
the Southern states, I have to say that none will be furnished. The demand
is only adding insult to injury. The people of this commonwealth
are freemen, not slaves, and will defend to the last extremity
their honor, lives, and property against Northern mendacity and
usurpation. (Governor Rector, Arkansas)
__________________ "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
The actions by Lincoln you are describing (calling out the Militia, declaring a blockade of Southern ports) are AFTER a military attack upon a US fort.
A Fort owned by SC, ilegaly occupied and against the orders of the president.
Quote:
The opinions you are refering to are before that and do not even attempt to address the issue of a President's responsibility to defend the nation against attack, whether from without or within. That DUTY is clear and unmistakable in the Constitution and US law, as has already been pointed out to you by others. Lincoln had little choice.
The nation was not attacked, in a war the duty is clear, but your poistion is that there was no war, so again get you own position constitant with fact of your own.
Quote:
As to recalling Congress, Fort Sumter was attacked on April 12-13 and Lincoln issued a call for Congress to return for an emergency session on April 15th. Just how much quicker is it you think he should have acted?
He called it into sesion 90 days hence, when the nation is attacked, like PH, it was for the next day, thats the timeframe the constition requiresPOTUS to act in, and he gets the authority to act in emergency, ie call up militai, when the immediacy of the circamstanbces require such action, since he called up congress in 90 days, the immediacy of the occiasion does not warranet the use of the 1795 act.
Quote:
Your meaning is unclear. Please explain what you intend to say here.
Jacson decalred he had no option but was compelled to act by calling up the militia and decalre a blockade, webster explained where he was wrong, explained what the duty of POTUS was, Jackosn then did as webster stipulated. You know, where what actually happened, not you fabrication of what happened.
This is the second time your have fabricated, next time and i shall refuse to continue with you.
Quote:
Hanny, what I did was point out what Webster himself said. It is not what you wish and imagine, no matter what you say.
The entire exchange is well known and perfectly clear, as is your dishonesty in claiming what it means.
Quote:
He is also very clearly describing a different situation than what Lincoln faced in April of 1861. Jackson did not face a South Carolina that had seized Federal bases and property, or fired upon a Federal fort and soldiers. Lincoln did. That changes everything.
Presupposes i agree that federal property, which is jointly owned by all member states cannot be siezed by a state that has left that Union, when recompense for pecunary investment is refused by the federal government, also pre supposes the federal propertry is federal prperty and not actually state property, which teh land title deed for Sumpter makes clear is still that of SC and would not become federal owned till post war.
Quote:
You are wrong on this, Hanny. You are trying to distort history here in order to claim a violent and aggressive Southern secession movement in 1861 is somehow identical to the South Carolina of the 1832 Nullification effort. Look at the facts and straighten out your own logical difficulties.
Tim
My only difficulty is your dishonsty, the exchange bewteen webster and jackson is clear and i have distorted nothing.
__________________ "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
And in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,)
Since neither the Gov or the legislkature notified POTUS of an insurection, the point is clear, no authourity to call up the militia....
Hanny, you are simply wrong on all of this. You are confusing opinion with authority.
The President had then and has now authority over the use of military force. Webster has an opinion on what the President can do -- but he, by himself, has no authority or power to decide the matter. Only the Supreme Court has a right to make that determination under the US Constitution.
Likewise, the Governors of the states have no authority or power to decide what the President may or may not do. They may have opinions, and they can decide whether to obey or not obey the Presidents calls for troops. A Governor refusing to comply might very well be in violation of his own duty and oath -- but they cannot decide what the President's powers are.
If this were a sporting event, you would be in the position of ignoring the rulebook and the officials while arguing that the opinions of the fans in the stands decides what can be done on the field.
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.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
