Did Lincoln follow precedents set by previous Presidents when dealing with the secession/rebellion of the southern states?

Did Lincoln follow precedents set by previous Presidents when dealing with secession/disunion?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 70.0%
  • No

    Votes: 9 30.0%

  • Total voters
    30

BuckeyeWarrior

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
Lincoln seems to get a lot of hate from those this forum that support the southern attempt at independence/disunion. However, the evidence I have seen shows that Lincoln did nothing more than follow the precedents set by presidents previous to him. In this thread I would like to discuss if this is true. So I want to limit this discussion to what Presidents either did or said about secession/rebellion/disunion while in office. Looking for evidence, from the time and sourced, on whether Lincoln did or did not follow precedent.

This post is not to discuss whether what these presidents did was right/wrong just if it was a precedent that Lincoln followed.

I’ll begin with a list of actions/statements by Presidents that, to me, show Lincoln followed precedent in dealing with the situation in 1860-61.

1)George Washington June 8, 1763;
“It is indispensable to the happiness of the individual states, that there should be lodged somewhere, a supreme power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the…republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every state, with the…proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue; that whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the sovereign authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the liberty and independency of America, and the authors of them treated accordingly….[W]ithout an entire conformity to the spirit of the Union, we cannot exist as an independent power.

Here the father of our country says that measures that might dissolve the Union should be considered hostile and treated accordingly. I would assume what he meant with treated accordingly is put down by force as he did in the whiskey rebellion.

2)James Monroe- in 1812, parts of New England tried to secede. Monroe ordered troops (23rd and 25th regiments) into Hartford Conn, where a convention on dissolution was being held by secessionist federalists in order to put down secessionism.

3)Andrew Jackson-issued the nullification proclamation which stated”disunion by armed force is treason.” Also said; “if one drop of blood be shed there in defiance of the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man of them I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find.’ Also ordered his secretary of war to plan for putting down secession if South Carolina did vote to secede.

4)Zachary Taylor-February 1850, after some incensed southern leaders threatened secession, Zachary angrily told them that he personally would lead the army if it became necessary in order to enforce federal laws and preserve the Union.

5)James Buchanan- states that secession was unconstitutional but also that the federal government did not have any authority to stop it. However did later say this to the commissioners of South Carolina;
“It is not believed that any attempt will be made to expel the United States from this property by force; but if in this I should prove to be mistaken, the officer in command of the forts has received orders to act strictly on the defensive. In such a contingency, the responsibility for consequences would rightfully rest upon the heads of the assailants.”

This statement, to me, shows even Buchanan would have used force if South Carolina had fired on Fort Sumter.

Look forward to hearing what other site members think on this question.
 
Back
Top