Could the Fort Sumter Crisis have been Settled by Negotiation?

Show where Lincoln followed the Constitution
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".
Article II, Section 1 vests "The executive Power... in a President of the United States of America". It requires that a President:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following​
Oath or Affirmation:​
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."​
Article II, Section 2 makes the President "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States".
So our Constitution clearly requires the President to assure that the laws are faithfully executed and the Union defended from insurrection. The open question concerns a President's powers to suppress a rebellion when Congress is not in session. Faced with this emergency, Lincoln chose to act to save the Union and seek approval when Congress was able to convene. When Congress reconvened Lincoln explained his unilateral actions in a message to Congress in special session on July 4, 1861:
viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power of the Government and so to resist force employed for its destruction by force for its preservation.​
Further,
The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed, were being resisted, and failing of execution, in nearly one third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of execution, even had it been perfectly clear, that by the use of the means necessary to their execution, some single law, made in such extreme tenderness of the citizen’s liberty, that practically, it relieves more of the guilty, than of the innocent, should, to a very limited extent, be violated? To state the question more directly, should all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the government should be overthrown, when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it?​
<Abraham Lincoln, Message to Congress, July 4, 1861. https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/july-4-1861-july-4th-message-congress
Sadly, there are those who would rather Lincoln had not been so aggressive, who would rather the United States had been 'balkanized'.
Given the extraordinary circumstances, I believe- like most Americans- that Lincoln acted prudently to prevent dissolution of our country.
 
Last edited:
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".
Article II, Section 1 vests "The executive Power... in a President of the United States of America". It requires that a President:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following​
Oath or Affirmation:​
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of​
President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."​
Article II, Section 2 makes the President "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States".
So our Constitution clearly requires the President to assure that the laws are faithfully executed and the Union defended from insurrection. The open question concerning a President's powers to suppress a rebellion when Congress is not in session. Faced with this, Lincoln chose to act to save the Union and seek approval when Congress was able to convene. When Congress reconvened Lincoln explained his unilateral actions in a message to Congress in special session on July 4, 1861:
viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power of the Government and so to resist force employed for its destruction by force for its preservation.​
Further,
The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed, were being resisted, and failing of execution, in nearly one third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of execution, even had it been perfectly clear, that by the use of the means necessary to their execution, some single law, made in such extreme tenderness of the citizen’s liberty, that practically, it relieves more of the guilty, than of the innocent, should, to a very limited extent, be violated? To state the question more directly, should all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the government should be overthrown, when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it?​
<Abraham Lincoln, Message to Congress, July 4, 1861. https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/july-4-1861-july-4th-message-congress
Sadly, there are those who would rather Lincoln had not been so aggressive, who would rather the United States had been 'balkanized'.
Given the extraordinary circumstances, I believe-like most Americans-that Lincoln acted prudently to prevent dissolution of our country.
In addition, there was the Militia Acts which provided for the calling out of the militia at the President's discretion without State permission or Congressional Permission in advance.

1795 Militia Act.

SEC. 2. 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.

 
#428<<<<<<
leftyhunter said:
President Lincoln decided to follow his constitutional responsibility to defend the United States from all enemies foreign or domestic.

Leftyhunter

Show where Lincoln followed the Constitution to make his civilian arrest.
To declare war on fellow states, to set up blockades, to call up an army.

Here is what I asked you from your statement.
Again Presidents don't arrest people , it's legally impossible for a nation to declare war on itself only another nation can declare war on another nation. A blockade is only against another nations ports the Confederacy is not a nation it is a rebel movement. The President has the right to call up the Army to suppress a rebellion. There was no court injunction against the federal government for suppressing a rebellion. There is no right of Secession per Texas v.White. Court cases can only take place after an act not during an act so Texas v.White is relevant case law.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".
Article II, Section 1 vests "The executive Power... in a President of the United States of America". It requires that a President:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following​
Oath or Affirmation:​
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."​
Article II, Section 2 makes the President "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States".
So our Constitution clearly requires the President to assure that the laws are faithfully executed and the Union defended from insurrection. The open question concerns a President's powers to suppress a rebellion when Congress is not in session. Faced with this emergency, Lincoln chose to act to save the Union and seek approval when Congress was able to convene. When Congress reconvened Lincoln explained his unilateral actions in a message to Congress in special session on July 4, 1861:
viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power of the Government and so to resist force employed for its destruction by force for its preservation.​
Further,
The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed, were being resisted, and failing of execution, in nearly one third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of execution, even had it been perfectly clear, that by the use of the means necessary to their execution, some single law, made in such extreme tenderness of the citizen’s liberty, that practically, it relieves more of the guilty, than of the innocent, should, to a very limited extent, be violated? To state the question more directly, should all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the government should be overthrown, when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it?​
<Abraham Lincoln, Message to Congress, July 4, 1861. https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/july-4-1861-july-4th-message-congress
Sadly, there are those who would rather Lincoln had not been so aggressive, who would rather the United States had been 'balkanized'.
Given the extraordinary circumstances, I believe- like most Americans- that Lincoln acted prudently to prevent dissolution of our country.
Thank you for saving me some time.
Leftyhunter
 
The occupation of Fort Sumter could have been negotiated. However the Morrill Tariff became effective with the signature of President Buchanan on March 2, 1861. Naval vessels and revenue cutters would have been at the Charleston Harbor, within days of weeks.
Negotiating Sumter would have moved the issue to Norfolk, Harper's Ferry and Fortress Monroe, and any attempt to reinforce those installations would have confrontational.
Free navigation of the Mississippi River would have become a contentious issue.
It is hard to see how negotiation outside of Congress is going to occur without legitimizing secession and undermining the Republican Party.
 
The occupation of Fort Sumter could have been negotiated. However the Morrill Tariff became effective with the signature of President Buchanan on March 2, 1861. Naval vessels and revenue cutters would have been at the Charleston Harbor, within days of weeks.
Negotiating Sumter would have moved the issue to Norfolk, Harper's Ferry and Fortress Monroe, and any attempt to reinforce those installations would have confrontational.
Free navigation of the Mississippi River would have become a contentious issue.
It is hard to see how negotiation outside of Congress is going to occur without legitimizing secession and undermining the Republican Party.
Good points
 
May be, but, it seems unlikely. Even Buchanan, could not find his way around, Davis' claim of independence(and you know he would have, if he could).
Time was out for talks.Once the fort was occupied and refused to surrender because they were occupying state property.in South Carolina view.Any chance to resolve the issues had past,the last forty years had been the time that had been used to negotiate any resolutions to these issues.In the end it was not Sumter it was the failure of the people to seek a agreeable solution. By 1854 the radicals on both sides had assumed responsibility for the peoples responses to what was to come.Hostilities in Kansas and Missouri was a miniature civil war of what was to come.Suggest book to read- Heirs of the Founders=H.W. Brands
 
Time was out for talks.Once the fort was occupied and refused to surrender because they were occupying state property.in South Carolina view.Any chance to resolve the issues had past,the last forty years had been the time that had been used to negotiate any resolutions to these issues.In the end it was not Sumter it was the failure of the people to seek a agreeable solution. By 1854 the radicals on both sides had assumed responsibility for the peoples responses to what was to come.Hostilities in Kansas and Missouri was a miniature civil war of what was to come.Suggest book to read- Heirs of the Founders=H.W. Brands
The CSA demanded Independence or war, nothing else would do.
see the thread Fort Sumter and Confederate Diplomacy
 
Time was out for talks.Once the fort was occupied and refused to surrender because they were occupying state property.in South Carolina view.Any chance to resolve the issues had past,the last forty years had been the time that had been used to negotiate any resolutions to these issues.In the end it was not Sumter it was the failure of the people to seek a agreeable solution. By 1854 the radicals on both sides had assumed responsibility for the peoples responses to what was to come.Hostilities in Kansas and Missouri was a miniature civil war of what was to come.Suggest book to read- Heirs of the Founders=H.W. Brands




Ft. Sumter was not State Property nor the land it was built upon. It was Federal Property, lock, stock and barrel, and recognized and attested to by the legal(Constitutionally recognized) authority of the gov't of all the People of the sovereign(under the Constitution)State of South Carolina.

It is correct that Radicals(secessionists) were in power in most of the State Legislatures in the southern section. I believe there was a significant difference in their tendency to war, ie., the dedication to maintain the Union, was more peaceful by intent, than that of those who were dedicated to breaking of the Union.

Secession and war, was not the failure of the people, but their leaders, who betrayed their trust
 
Ft. Sumter was not State Property nor the land it was built upon. It was Federal Property, lock, stock and barrel, and recognized and attested to by the legal(Constitutionally recognized) authority of the gov't of all the People of the sovereign(under the Constitution)State of South Carolina.

It is correct that Radicals(secessionists) were in power in most of the State Legislatures in the southern section. I believe there was a significant difference in their tendency to war, ie., the dedication to maintain the Union, was more peaceful by intent, than that of those who were dedicated to breaking of the Union.

Secession and war, was not the failure of the people, but their leaders, who betrayed their trust
I believe the Civil War was over whose laws were the supreme law.
 
I don't think so if you factor in the Confederate firing of the USS Star of the West ship on January 9, 1861 and had they've been successful in actually destroying the ship all hope for negotiation would have been lost and since President James Buchanan is still in power although he won't forcibly call for militia given he was against it but Buchanan though will not be happy that a government-owned ship was just destroyed and when he does have a softer call for troops to put down the rebellion the Upper South states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas are going to secede and join the Confederacy like they did in OTL with Lincoln in charge.
 
The Star of the West was fired on January 9, and there was no massive rally around the flag that had been fired on as there was when Sumter was bombarded. Why not? What changed in those three months?
 
The Star of the West was fired on January 9, and there was no massive rally around the flag that had been fired on as there was when Sumter was bombarded. Why not? What changed in those three months?
Propaganda? National organs beating war drums? Local newspapers ginning things up. Leaders all aboard secession because it was politically correct.

The CSA did not exist at that time either.
 
Back
Top