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.
A Fort owned by SC, ilegaly occupied and against the orders of the president.
No, Hanny. Title to Ft. Sumter is very clear, and had been recorded in South Carolina records some 20 years earlier: the United States of America owned it, not South Carolina. It was legally occupied by US troops, and the commander on the spot had discretionary orders from Washington that allowed him to move his forces there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
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.
No, my position is that after the Confederate attack on Ft. Sumter, one of two things must be true. Either the US has been attacked by insurrectionists (if there is no "right of secession") or it has been attacked by a foreign enemy (if there is a "right of secession"). Choose whichever one you want and the President has full power and responsibility to respond.
If the nation was not under attack, just what was the story with those three thousand artillery shells raining down on Ft. Sumter? Who were those men interning US soldiers peacefully withdrawing from Texas as agreed upon by that state and the US government? If these are not attacks, the world awaits your wisdom: please explain them to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
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.
Hanny, this paragraph is just silly. It ignores the state of technology for travel and communications in that place and time, and it ignores the size of the United States. In 1845, it took six months for the President to send a message to the West Coast of North America. In 1861, the Pony Express had just opened. It then took about 11 days to get a message from St. Joseph, Missouri to Sacramento, California -- plus whatever time it took to arrive in St. Joseph and to reach the destination from Sacramento.
Congress recessed in March 1861 and planned to reconvene in December. Senators and Congressmen from the West Coast often went home during the recess, and would be perhaps a month into a journey West when the President is making his decisions. Simply getting a message to them would take weeks. Then they would have to return from wherever they were when the message found them. Given the withdrawal of the Senators and Congressman from many states, Lincoln probably needed everyone he could get just to be sure he had a quorum.
So Lincoln on April 15 called for an emergency session on July 4 (that's 80 days, BTW, not 90 as you state). My personal guess is that he might have been able to shave a week or so off that when he made the call, but anything less risked the West Coast people being able to return in time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
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.
Again, Hanny, you are trying to make believe the situation in the Nullification Crisis of 1832 is identical to the violent attack on Ft. Sumter (and the internment of over 1,000 US soldiers in Texas by hostile forces) are somehow equivalent. They are not.
Even Webster acknowledged the President had the right to use military force without prior Congressional approval. US forces were being fired upon and made prisoner. The President has a clear responsibility to respond, and Congress is not in session to be asked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Your meaning is unclear. Please explain what you intend to say here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
This is the second time your have fabricated, next time and i shall refuse to continue with you.
Huh? I ask you to clarify your meaning and you claim that is a fabrication? I must again ask you to explain your meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
The entire exchange is well known and perfectly clear, as is your dishonesty in claiming what it means.
Hanny, the problem appears to be that you don't want to accept all of what Webster said he meant. Your objection seems to be that you do not want to see the additional parts of Webster's speech that I posted.
Note also that Webster is making a political campaign speech in the middle of an election year here, and actively seeking to have Jackson defeated. He was also a man with Presidential ambitions of his own (making his foirst run at the Presidency in 1836). While it is a great speech, it is also a politically-motivated one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
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.
1) You are wrong on the law.
2) You are wrong on the ownership of the property.
3) If still in the Union, no state can confiscate US property.
4) If out of the Union, South Carolina would be acting illegally under their own laws in seizing foreign property.
5) The "right of secession" was a debatable point at that time, never having beeen established to exist under US law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
My only difficulty is your dishonsty, the exchange bewteen webster and jackson is clear and i have distorted nothing.
Then you have no problem with me, because everything I have posted is honest. Your problem with the Webster speech seems to be that you only want to see specific lines in it.
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
Please Hanny, SC and the South were interpreting the Constitution without authority of the SC OR Congress or the majority of the states Or the majority of the citizens and Definitiely Not by the the authority of Lincoln OR Buchanan.
Hanny is it true or not true that SC had ..."by ingenious devices of those who rejected the law had escaped from the reach of Judicial Authority.." ?
In the case of 1860, Lincoln decided that Webster's thoughts on the matter were either wrong or inapplicable or inappropriate to the situation in 1860-1861 and Congress, the majority of citizens and states agreed.
Webster was a supporter of the Force Act, Is Hanny confident that given the choice of disunion or the use of force, that Webster would not have supported even stronger measures against secession? Like Jackson, Webster already had his answer for SC if that state tried to give force to it's Constitutional Pretensions.
This thread has taken a strange turn. It has been clearly and convincingly argued that Lincoln had the authority to call up the militia after Ft. Sumter was taken. But we get the "authority" of governors and Dan Webster disagreeing, therefore he didn't have the authority.
That does not compute. Under the Constitution, only SCOTUS can decide whether or not Lincoln had the authority. Every governor and every senator and every member of the house can disagree with the president but, until SCOTUS rules he was wrong, he was right. Redefining a term doesn't work either.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
This thread has taken a strange turn. It has been clearly and convincingly argued that Lincoln had the authority to call up the militia after Ft. Sumter was taken. But we get the "authority" of governors and Dan Webster disagreeing, therefore he didn't have the authority.
That does not compute. Under the Constitution, only SCOTUS can decide whether or not Lincoln had the authority. Every governor and every senator and every member of the house can disagree with the president but, until SCOTUS rules he was wrong, he was right. Redefining a term doesn't work either.
Here's an interesting link for anyone wanting to actually work through the authority for Lincoln's actions:
THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AT THE LOWEST EBB —
A CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY
Section III. THE CIVIL WAR AND ITS AFTERMATH starts on page 53 of the PDF file.
In general, the article would say the three biggest Spring 1861 actions on which Lincoln's authority could be challenged would be: 1) suspension of Habeas Corpus (Congress eventually gave Lincoln less than he wanted) 2) Expending Unappropriated Funds To Raise Troops (Congress approved this immediately) 3) Secret and Unauthorized Expenditures to Private Persons To Raise Troops. (Lincoln was not forthcoming on this; Congress didn't like it, and Lincoln acknowledged that any fault was his.
There doesn't seem to be any doubt of his authority for calling for the Militia under the Militia Acts of 1792/1795 and the Insurrection Act of 1807. Here's a short sample of what it says on those:
=====
... Indeed, in
1807, in the wake of the Burr conspiracy,
Congress even authorized the President to employ the land or naval forces, as he judged necessary, to respond to domestic insurrections or obstructions of the laws in any case where the Militia Act of 1795 had previously authorized him to use the militia for such purposes.And although this law, the Insurrection Act of 1807, did require the President to “first observe[] all the prerequisites of [the Militia Act of 1795],”including the requirement that the President issue a proclamation that “insurgents” should “disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes, within a limited time,”it reflected a growing acceptance of both the existence of a standing army and the President’s quite substantial role in overseeing it.
=====
That amounts to authority to use the Navy forces to blockade ports, among other things.
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.
Then you have no problem with me, because everything I have posted is honest. Your problem with the Webster speech seems to be that you only want to see specific lines in it.
Tim
My last post to you, i will not further converse with a liar.
__________________ "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
This thread has taken a strange turn. It has been clearly and convincingly argued that Lincoln had the authority to call up the militia after Ft. Sumter was taken. But we get the "authority" of governors and Dan Webster disagreeing, therefore he didn't have the authority.
That does not compute. Under the Constitution, only SCOTUS can decide whether or not Lincoln had the authority. Every governor and every senator and every member of the house can disagree with the president but, until SCOTUS rules he was wrong, he was right. Redefining a term doesn't work either.
ole
Constition is clear, only Congress can call up the militia for service, the execptions for POTUS demand and require the immediate recall of congress for POTUS to explain his use of this execption.
SCOTUS is not the final word, C Validinham for instance was exiled on POTUS order after conviction in amil tribunal set up under Liber, his lawyer approached SCTUS for appelet review, and was told the mil tribinausls were not courts in the US legal sytem and outside SCOTUS.
Madison when creating SCOTUS, expaliened that it had the last word only on legistaive matters, otherwise it would be a despotic depatrtement, and Madison would also explain why state gov and legistures, acting in the corporate capacity as representatives of the people, had the right to nullification and secesion, and that POTUS had the right of veto, and SCOTUS as body of intpretation of laws made by congress.
__________________ "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 & FALL OF THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT
It is also true, that the final, word did not rest with South Carolina nor Davis nor the csa.
There could be rational debate on the matter before the War, but not after.
Constition is clear, only Congress can call up the militia for service, the execptions for POTUS demand and require the immediate recall of congress for POTUS to explain his use of this execption.
For anybody reading this drivel who actually is interested in checks and balances. The most appropriate description of the relationship between the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch is that the power to call up the Militia is expressly granted to Congress in the Consitution, a power Congress had chosen to delegate to the Executive Branch by statute. This delegation was specifically ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court.
My last post to you, i will not further converse with a liar.
Oh Hanny, don't be that way. You make some really good points.
I find I have to dig pretty hard to get past your rhetoric ("Rhett-oric" maybe?) but there's usually something there. Others might find it easier to see this if you could put the emotions in the fridge once in a while.
Oh Hanny, don't be that way. You make some really good points.
I find I have to dig pretty hard to get past your rhetoric ("Rhett-oric" maybe?) but there's usually something there. Others might find it easier to see this if you could put the emotions in the fridge once in a while.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
