Sumter Provocation

Anyone so designated by that government. Remember, the states of the South believed (rightly) that under the Constitution they had the right to withdraw from the existing union and create a union or confederation of their own.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;

I guess the South never actually READ the constitution then...

They never left the union. And the fort was deeded to the federal government. They resupplied the fort that they owned. I don't care what the resupplied it with, it was their fort they can do what they want in it! The state of South Carolina had no right to stop them, and Lincoln had EVERY right to stop the rebellion. ESPECIALLY after Federal property was fired upon!
 
LadyVal,

What the states of the South believed and what was actually in the Constitution and the law, turned out to be two VERY different things.

While I believe there is a way to constitutionally withdraw a state from the Union, I also believe that the South (and not the entire South, as I also believe the South was not as solid for secession as is always presumed) picked the wrong method, or more exactly, the leaders did the choosing, unilateral secession.

The idea of unilateral secession was always decried and always looked upon as wrong, for a long time prior to the Civil War. President's Jackson, Taylor, and Buchanan considered it wrong. The Southern states maintained it was wrong when it was thought New England was considering such a move, the majority of Southern States considered it wrong in 1850 during the US Congressional races when it was put forth. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Taney, considered it wrong and said so.

"The South contends that a state has a constitutional right to secede from the Union formed with her sister states. In this I submit the South errs. No power or right is constitutional but what can be exercised in a form or mode provided in the constitution for its exercise. Secession is therefore not constitutional, but revolutionary; and is only morally competent, like war, upon failure of justice."

This, from the man charged with interperting the Constitution.

The premise that the Constitution permitted secession is not based on anything but what you have stated above.

The Southern states believed.

They could not find any basis in law or fact, they simply believed.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
It's quite clear the good reverend either ignored or was unaware of the O.R., the words of Davis and others. Provocation from Lincoln? Please what a load, the man had been in office exactly how long? The very idea that US soldiers should not be allowed to starve is provacative is so uber left wing peacenik liberal that... never mind. No matter how much is said there have always been and continue to be those who have drank the Lost Cause KoolAid in a very enthusiastic manner. I'm actually quite glad the US isn't as evil as the Lost cause and their modern proponents would have us believe. See my signature the good "Reverend" would have been a good example for it.
 
The premise that the Constitution permitted secession is not based on anything but what you have stated above.

The Southern states believed.

They could not find any basis in law or fact, they simply believed.

Well said, Unionblue. And I might add that this is not a dead end. Fortunately the Constitution has a mechanism by which it can be altered - the Constitutional Amendment. Unfortunately, the Southern legislatures, in their haste to railroad the people of the South into a secession that most of them didn't want, refused to pursue it.
 
The sad part is, that those in the South to whom wished to remove themselves from the United States of America; did not exhaust legal remedies within the Congress and the US Surpreme Court.

When Fairfax County deeded a portion of Virginia, as to create the new "Federal City" (Washington, DC), as to put more center the seat of government of those states and commonwealths at that point were only thirteen in number; the Virginians were unhappy to be a part of the 10 mile square of Washington, that they petitioned to be returned back to Virginia.

The US Federal Courts agreed. Virginia won their case without bloodshed. A legal first was established which could have been used to argue the issues the Southern unhappy states had, wishing to separate from the US Federal Government. What was delightful, was the spirit of cooperation by the Federal Government, et.al., in transfering governmental operations smoothly, in addition to all files and paperwork; deeds and such all back to Virginia to which both Virginia and US Government peacefully swapped everything without one person being wounded in the process and no army or violence was needed.

This land became Alexandria County, Virginia and later became Arlington, County in 1922. (Reference: History of Arlington County, Virginia)

Impatience and politics in regard to the unhappy states and commonwealths lead their cause into a more violent path after simmering for many presidential administrations.

We (in a general sense) will never know, had the unhappy states/commonwealths applied their case in Congress first, then the US Surpreme Court, declared itself independent and or separated without any hostilities and or take overs of Federal Arsenals, property and or Forts--could have had more credibility and or a peaceful end.

We (in a general sense) will never know how many damaging documents, as to add more evidence to this discussion existed before they were destroyed in or about Richmond, Virginia -- after the Appomattox surrender of General Lee and his army. It may be that they were even more profound than what was saved.

Although LadyVal posted very interesting reads --the "Official Records of the Rebellion" was written in the moment as events unfolded and without the fuzzy nature of memories years later. Opinions and comments of the cited sources are worthy of consideration however, the 'in the moment' documentation is an evidence trail and to me a train wreck that was to take place and I am the reader to whom is watching the collateral effects of emotional thoughts going beyond what I would consider 'wisdom of patience.' Having not exhausted all legal remedies, e.g. US Surpreme Court --is to me a great flaw.

Nobody is explaining why two shells were discharged at Fort Sumter on Buchanan's watch --as to explain why it couldn't be considered a threating behavior. Ok, one was excused as an accident. The second was different. Then, the actual official firing on Ft. Sumter until its surrender. So you have three individual firing incidents on Fort Sumter. Real manly to take a detail working on construction of Ft. Sumter and starving them, denying them access to their Government's instructions, snooping in official documents to which they knew darn well they were not entitled to and were to be privy to. An inferior force within the Fort itself, as to be inefficient to defend itself from an attack that was pre-planned and in blunt terms--a conspiracy. It wasn't a fair fight. And, it wasn't ethical for General Beauregard to force Major Anderson to make a decision of a political nature under the guise of military function.

I also see where the Commonwealth of Virginia was warm to the Southern States before the firing on Fort Sumter. I am of the opinion that Virginia may have entered without the attack on Fort Sumter.

Researching the town of "Annandale, Virginia," -- it is evident there was voter intimidation and caused many to not vote at all and or not be counted in their vote as to remain in the Union. Many pro Union votes were destroyed --thus; the Confederate cause for secession was done by force-not done by liberty and or freedom of choices. Rather contrary to the 'thumping' of chests puffed out by political roosters, strutting and crowing about "liberty, justice, sovereign powers--started looking like a dictatorship' in the little town of "Annandale, Virginia" leading up to Virginia's secession from the Union. So, how many other towns and or cities were subjected to 'like' behaviors? Seems to me the "Fire Eaters" deceived the plain and wonderful folks of the Southern States and Commonwealths, if Annandale is any measure.

Can anybody tell I hate politicians?! :laugh1:

My apologies - [gets off soap box]:)

It is great to mention General McClellan's 1862 campaign as justification of this and that but, there is a huge gap between the firing on Fort Sumter and its surrender.

What happened to the fact Confederate forces were massing together on the plains of Manassas, Virginia - approximately 20 miles from the US Capital and in threatening jestures, which General Winfield Scott was aware of and a good amount of his Regular military gone, as they defected to the CSA military?

June 30th, 1861 - Captain John Marr - a Volunteer Confederate officer of Warrenton, Virginia - a sheriff; was killed at Fairfax Court-House. Being the first CSA officer to fall in the Civil War from Virginia. Previous to that; on May 24th, 1861 - Union Colonel Elmer Ellsworth of the New York"Fire Zouaves" designated as "First Zouave Regiment, New York Militia," at the Marshall House was killed. He was the first Union officer to die in the Civil War. And, this was when Alexandria, Virginia was occupied by Union forces throughout the Civil War--the longest occupied Confederate city and territory held by Union forces.

May 24th, 1861 --if any Confederate historian knowing their history--would know this is when the first Union force stepped into Confederate territory - Arlington Heights and the city of Alexandria, Virginia and occupied it. Nobody in Montgomery, Alabama or Richmond, Virginia -- nobody in the Confederate Government got their shorts in a wad when this happened.


July 10th, 1861- Conflicts took place at Big Bethal.
July 18th, 1861- Battle of Blackburn's Ford which General Longstreet was a major part of took place and connects to
July 21st, 1861 -Battle of First Bull Run/Manassas took place.

General McClellan assumes command from General I. McDowell on July 27th, 1861.

And Civil War history goes on and on from the 'official' recognition of the firing on and surrender of Fort Sumter.

Why nobody gets all 'passionate' and 'heated' about the Union occupation of Alexandria, Virginia as much as Fort Sumter, then (as in the days of the Civil War) - I'll never know.

Just some thoughts, opinions, comments and observations.

Respectfully submitted,
M. E. Wolf
 
M. E. Wolf,

Another excellent post for which I thank you for taking such time and effort to explain such events in detail using historical sources, the OR's, etc.

I very much enjoyed seeing you repost your example of Fairfax County and the federal courts concerning ceding land in a peaceful manner via established law.

Your views and opinions, backed up by source documents and historical events, need to be considered in a thoughtful and serious manner, the same manner in which they were presented.

Thank you again.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Well said, Unionblue. And I might add that this is not a dead end. Fortunately the Constitution has a mechanism by which it can be altered - the Constitutional Amendment. Unfortunately, the Southern legislatures, in their haste to railroad the people of the South into a secession that most of them didn't want, refused to pursue it.

brass napoleon,

I agree with your view that it was not a 'dead end' for any state to leave the Union, but as Chief Justice Taney stated, it HAD to be by means stated in the US Constitution. Just as there is a procedure to have territories join the Union as States, the reverse of such a process could have been effected. Or a constitutional amendment could have been proposed by Southern representatives in Congress. A national referrendum could have been proposed and set forth for the entire nation to vote yea or nay on a state that wished to secede.

It is my own opinion that none of these alternatives were chosen because the leadership of the secession movements knew they had no legal or historical precedent to stand on. Unilateral secession was chosen only because this venue cut short debate and any legal action that might prevent the secession movement. Force was then chosen to impell other states to join the secession movement.

Fort Sumter's surrender by means of war was needed by the secession leadership to reach their goal of forcible separation.

IMO.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Very cogent and very much appreciated comments, M.E. The "northern invasion" has always churned my bowels. Much more so than Ft. Sumter was a foreign fort in a soveriegn nation. Much more so than secession was legal because the Constitution didn't expressly say it wasn't. Very much more so than the Confederate soldier sought to protect hearth and home. Them are subjects of discussion; "northern invasion" is far too silly to contemplate.

History is open to interpretation. Fair enough. But when that interpretation selects which bits of history to interpret and which bits to ignore kinda stretches the belief system.

Interesting discussion.

Ole

Why can't I edit out the double invasion"?
 
UnionBlue, sir;

I do thank you for your most kind words sir.

It is my pleasure to present how I come to my observations and opinions sir.

[Formal saber salute :sabre: to the gentleman - UnionBlue]

Respectfully submitted,
M. E. Wolf
 
Losing a war invariably derides respect for the reasons to start it. Right or Wrong

" With my wife I don't get no respect. I made a toast to the best woman I ever had; The waiter joined me"
Rodney Dangerfield
 
Davis believed that the seceded states were free and independent of the Constitution of the United States; Lincoln did not believe that to be a fact. Whose belief was correct and how would the correctness be determined?
There were various options(closely discussed on m,any other threads on this board) and the south chose the most obviously Illegal; Rebellion.
 
Davis believed that the seceded states were free and independent of the Constitution of the United States ...
Actually, I've not seen any evidence that Davis believed all that. He was appointed to a position that purported to lead a league of secessionist states. I tend to think that the poor booger was dumped into a position of leadership in which he had neither talent nor passionate interest. He did what he ought to have done ... his best. But his best wasn't good enough. Getting to the finals by a fluke wasn't a good omen. Kinda lile Ol' Miss getting into the final four.

Ole
 
Actually, I've not seen any evidence that Davis believed all that. He was appointed to a position that purported to lead a league of secessionist states. I tend to think that the poor booger was dumped into a position of leadership in which he had neither talent nor passionate interest. He did what he ought to have done ... his best. But his best wasn't good enough. Getting to the finals by a fluke wasn't a good omen. Kinda lile Ol' Miss getting into the final four.

Ole
According the Jeff Davis site he believed in secesssion. He accepted a position as a General in the Confederate Army and later the position as President of the Confederate States of America.

"On 10 January 1861, Mr. Davis made another speech on the state of the country, asserting the right of secession, denying that of coercion, and urging the withdrawal of the garrison from Fort Sumter."

"Mississippi had seceded on 9 January and on 24 January having been officially informed of the fact, Mr. Davis withdrew from the senate and went to his home, having taken leave of his associates in a speech in which he defended the cause of the south..."

"Before he reached home he had been appointed by the convention commander-in-chief of the army of Mississippi, with the rank of major general ; but on 18 February, 1861, he exchanged this office for that of President of the Confederate States, to which the provisional congress at Montgomery had elected him on 9 February."

http://www.jeffersondavis.net/
 
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;

I guess the South never actually READ the constitution then...

They were no longer under that Constitution.

dred said:
...the fort was deeded to the federal government. They resupplied the fort that they owned. I don't care what the resupplied it with, it was their fort they can do what they want in it! The state of South Carolina had no right to stop them, and Lincoln had EVERY right to stop the rebellion. ESPECIALLY after Federal property was fired upon!
Hold on a minute. Fort Sumter was not a Federal District. It was still part of the territory of the State of South Carolina...and in that deed you speak of reserved legal jurisdiction over the property.
 
The very first line in the series of articles posted by LadyVal shows it's basic flaw.

Fortt Sumter Part I

"A fort on South Carolina's Sovereign Soil."

'South Carolina's Sovereign Soil' did not exculde itself from the Union of States, the Constitution's Supreme Law of the Land, nor the right to negotiate or forcibly take the nation's property, like a schoolyard bully demanding the rest of the student body's lunch money.

The good Reverend is not teaching history by the offering of these series of articles.

He is merely preaching a sermon to the faithful.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Not so, sir! A state's sovereign soil is - or rather was - it's sovereign soil! At least that is how the Republic was established. The states created the federal government. The nonsensical belief that it was the other way round is just that - nonsensical. The federal government had no more right to dictate to South Carolina or Maine what it could do with its sovereign territory than it has to wage war on those states. Alas, we now accept the right of Washington to tell the States and the People what to do which is in direct contrast to the dictates of the Constitution which states plainly that the federal government has only those powers directly ceded to it in that document and that all other powers not so ceded belong to the SOVEREIGN States and the People. That is what the Constitution said and that is what it meant. However, a bloody, illegal and savage war simply nullified the entire conception of the federal - or more precisely NATIONAL - government with respects to the States and the People and replaced it, like something out of Alice in Wonderland, with a diametric understanding; that is, that the States and the People were now vassals of the national government forced to do its bidding by force of law backed with military and para-military might. It has taken a long time for those particular Lincolnesque chickens to come home to roost, but we certainly are seeing the fulfillment of that "victory" by the "Union" more and more clearly with every passing day.
 
Not so, sir! A state's sovereign soil is - or rather was - it's sovereign soil! At least that is how the Republic was established. The states created the federal government. The nonsensical belief that it was the other way round is just that - nonsensical. The federal government had no more right to dictate to South Carolina or Maine what it could do with its sovereign territory than it has to wage war on those states. Alas, we now accept the right of Washington to tell the States and the People what to do which is in direct contrast to the dictates of the Constitution which states plainly that the federal government has only those powers directly ceded to it in that document and that all other powers not so ceded belong to the SOVEREIGN States and the People. That is what the Constitution said and that is what it meant. However, a bloody, illegal and savage war simply nullified the entire conception of the federal - or more precisely NATIONAL - government with respects to the States and the People and replaced it, like something out of Alice in Wonderland, with a diametric understanding; that is, that the States and the People were now vassals of the national government forced to do its bidding by force of law backed with military and para-military might. It has taken a long time for those particular Lincolnesque chickens to come home to roost, but we certainly are seeing the fulfillment of that "victory" by the "Union" more and more clearly with every passing day.

LadyVal,

With respect, you have it in reverse. The nonsensical belief that South Carolina could dictate to the rest of the nation what was right in their eyes and the hell with what anybody else thought or felt is what actually happened here.

The Constitution binds the States as much as it limits the federal government in its outline (Article I, Section 10), something which many seem to forget when it comes to secession. If we are to go by your theory that the States created the federal government, then we MUST agree that ALL of the States did so and thus, ALL of the States must agree to its disolution, not just one (or a select few) on its own hook.

Again, unilateral secession, according to historical precedent and according to the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court of the time stated the South had no constitutional resort to unilateral secession. No legal or political means were ever implemented by the Southern leadership of the time, they simply had a belief in a theory which no one had attempted to put into play until the election of Abraham Lincoln. They should have simply called it what it was, rebellion, plain and simple.

As for what now, alas, is taking place in our nation at the present time, it is hard for me to lay it at the door of the American Civil War without laying most of the blame at the current population of the United States and its long sleep at the switch of responsibility of citizenship. As a one-time member of that military and para-military might you say the national government is now using to force us to do its bidding, I say bunk.

My primary concern and those of my fellow military members was to guard this nation and the citizens thereof so that they could, in peace and safety, decide what course they wanted their nation to take and what leaders they wanted to take them there. At NO time did we force anyone to do the government's bidding, nor did anyone in the National Guard or the Reserves. I am also of the opinion that our sister services sent no ships into American harbors to do such, nor did any jet fighters or bombers fly over them to do such.

To think that they ever had, or will, is nonsensical.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Again, unilateral secession, according to historical precedent and according to the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court of the time stated the South had no constitutional resort to unilateral secession....

Sincerely,
Unionblue
Please show us the law or judgement made prior to 1860-61 that specifically addresses secession.
 

Learn About Us
►About CivilWarTalk
►Contact the Webmaster
►Meet the Staff
►Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
►Register
►Browse Forums
►View Today's Discussions
►Search the Forum
Get Help
►FAQ
►Student Guide
►Forum Rules & Etiquette
►Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top