US Official Declarations of War

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
There have been some posts here in the Forum lately that claims the US Congress voted a declaration of war against the Confederacy in 1861. These claims are incorrect. The list that follows contains all declarations of war ever passed by the US Congress in the history of the nation against another nation:

War of 1812
06/18/1812 Senate: 19-13 House: 79-49 British Empire

Mexican-American War
05/11/1846 Senate: 40-2 House: 174-14 Mexico

Spanish-American War
05/24/1898 Senate: 42-35 House: 310-6 Spain

World War I
04/06/1917 Senate: 82-6 House: 373-50 Germany
12/07/1917 Senate: 74-0 House: 365-1 Austria-Hungary

World War II
12/08/1941 Senate: 82-0 House: 388-1 Japan
12/11/1941 Senate: 88-0 House: 393-0 Germany
12/11/1941 Senate: 90-0 House: 399-0 Italy
06/05/1942 Senate: 73-0 House: 357-0 Bulgaria
06/05/1942 Senate: 73-0 House: 360-0 Hungary
06/05/1942 Senate: 73-0 House: 361-0 Romania

There are also some 12 specific military engagements for which Congress has not declared war, but for which it has passed specific authorizing legislation These range from the Quasi-War with France in 1798 to the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Civil War is not one of these.

The Korean War or Conflict was participated in as part of the United Nations and no specific act of Congress authorized it (although it might be claimed treaty obligations required our participation).

Beyond that, there are approximately 125 conflicts or struggles that have no specific declaration or other authorization from Congress. The longest of them would be the more than 40 year struggle with the Apaches (1840-86?); there are at least 28 conflicts generally refered to as "the Indian Wars".

Tim
 
A declararion of war by Congress would have had the effect of recognizing the Confederacy as a Soverign Nation. In rhe eyes of rhe Uited States the Civil War was a rebellion which it had every right to put down. No declaration of war was necessary.
 
A declararion of war by Congress would have had the effect of recognizing the Confederacy as a Soverign Nation. In rhe eyes of rhe Uited States the Civil War was a rebellion which it had every right to put down. No declaration of war was necessary.

I agree totally. The President and the Congress acted on the premise you are describing, but recently there have been posts here on the board claiming that Congress had actually declared war. As noted in post #1, this never happened.

Tim
 
There have been some posts here in the Forum lately that claims the US Congress voted a declaration of war against the Confederacy in 1861. These claims are incorrect. The list that follows contains all declarations of war ever passed by the US Congress in the history of the nation against another nation:
Tim

What i posted, was that that Congres ratified a pres order declaring a blockade initated by POTUS, but that it was only congress who could do so, and would ex post facto ratify POTUS actions, in that respect, only Congres can declare a blockade, and a blockade can only be made when at war, or initiate a war as it is itself an act of war, and as such Congress had indeed voted to recognise that POPTUS had decalred a war.

This was a logical and legal question, not one which ones can answer by looking at wikki and copy paste, from a source that does not include The Barbary Wars
(1801-1805 & 1815) America's first "foreign warhttp://www.history.army.mil/reference/earlyrepub/barops.htm

Boxer Rebellion 1900
The Moro Wars 1901-1913
U.S. Occupation of Vera Cruz
1914

Pershing's Raid Into Mexico
http://www.va.gov/pressrel/amwars01.htm
Indian Wars, approx. 1817 to 1898 Participants Deaths in Service Living Veterans
106,000 1,000 0
Last Veteran: Fredrak Fraske, died 6/18/73, age 101
 
What i posted, was that that Congres ratified a pres order declaring a blockade initated by POTUS, but that it was only congress who could do so, and would ex post facto ratify POTUS actions, in that respect, only Congres can declare a blockade, and a blockade can only be made when at war, or initiate a war as it is itself an act of war, and as such Congress had indeed voted to recognise that POPTUS had decalred a war.

Your conclusion is completely wrong. The only actual legal declarations of war the US has ever made are the ones I listed. This is fact, easily verifiable if you will abandon your desire to claim something else.

While you are pushing this stuff, what makes you think "only Congres can declare a blockade"? The writers of the Constitution made no such distinction. In fact, they discussed the difference between "declaring war" and "making war" and decided to limit Congress to "declaring war". The President has the power to "make war", as in directing the employment of forces at his command. The only thing I can see that might be even close to Congress authorizing a blockade would be the agreement with Britain on co-operation against the slave trade signed in 1820.

The President has always had the right and power to direct the forces of the nation. Said Chief Justice Taney in 1850: “His duty and his power are purely military. As commander-in-chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. He may invade the hostile country, and subject it to the sovereignty and authority of the United States. But his conquests do not enlarge the boundaries of this Union, nor extend the operation of our institutions and laws beyond the limits before assigned to them by the legislative power.”

This was a logical and legal question, not one which ones can answer by looking at wikki and copy paste, from a source that does not include The Barbary Wars (1801-1805 & 1815) America's first "foreign war http://www.history.army.mil/reference/earlyrepub/barops.htm

The US never declared war on the Barbary states. That is the logical and legal truth.

This action with the Barbary States is included in the "12 specific military engagements" I mentioned in post #1 of this thread. The Congress did pass legislation authorizing the use of military force -- which is why you are legally and logically wrong in your claim.

Boxer Rebellion 1900
The Moro Wars 1901-1913
U.S. Occupation of Vera Cruz
1914

Pershing's Raid Into Mexico
http://www.va.gov/pressrel/amwars01.htm
Indian Wars, approx. 1817 to 1898 Participants Deaths in Service Living Veterans
106,000 1,000 0
Last Veteran: Fredrak Fraske, died 6/18/73, age 101

Congress declared war for none of these. Congress also did not pass specific laws authorizing these uses of military force -- because it was simply considered within the powers and duties of the Presidency to employ military force in these circumstances.

This isn't surprising, and is actually rather normal in international affairs. For example, Britain fought more than 100 "wars" during the reign of Queen Victoria. Would you care to tell us how many times, legally and logically, Britain actually "declared war" on the people they were fighting?

Tim
 
Your conclusion is completely wrong. The only actual legal declarations of war the US has ever made are the ones I listed. This is fact, easily verifiable if you will abandon your desire to claim something else.

And yet have nothing to do with my point about Congress retro actitvily ackowedging the blockade as being legal as if it had ordered it. hemnce my conclusion is sound and you have not provided any counter to chaange it.

While you are pushing this stuff, what makes you think "only Congres can declare a blockade"? The writers of the Constitution made no such distinction. In fact, they discussed the difference between "declaring war" and "making war" and decided to limit Congress to "declaring war". The President has the power to "make war", as in directing the employment of forces at his command. The only thing I can see that might be even close to Congress authorizing a blockade would be the agreement with Britain on co-operation against the slave trade signed in 1820.

its in the constition, only congres can declare war, and a blockade is an act of war, ergo only congres can decalre a blockade. POTUS directes the mil when called into service as per the constition, he had limiyted authority to call it into service in extreme cicamstances, and coercion of states was not one of them.


The President has always had the right and power to direct the forces of the nation. Said Chief Justice Taney in 1850: “His duty and his power are purely military. As commander-in-chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. He may invade the hostile country, and subject it to the sovereignty and authority of the United States. But his conquests do not enlarge the boundaries of this Union, nor extend the operation of our institutions and laws beyond the limits before assigned to them by the legislative power.”

when called into service, the US mil is indeed directed by POTUS, what POTUS did not have in 1860, was the right and duty and authority to call militia up to coerce states.


The US never declared war on the Barbary states. That is the logical and legal truth.

Madison asked congress for permision to DOW but was turned down, an example of POTUS not being able to DOW at will,

heres what you ought to have pasted fromhttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32170.pdf

This isn't surprising, and is actually rather normal in international affairs. For example, Britain fought more than 100 "wars" during the reign of Queen Victoria. Would you care to tell us how many times, legally and logically, Britain actually "declared war" on the people they were fighting?

Tim

Ah, that would be 100% of the time. Any act of war is also a DOW.
 
I finally get it! (A bit slow on the uptake, I guess.) Hanny cannot be wrong. Just change the commonly used definitions.

ole
 
And yet have nothing to do with my point about Congress retro actitvily ackowedging the blockade as being legal as if it had ordered it. hemnce my conclusion is sound and you have not provided any counter to chaange it.

That is all meaningless, Hanny. In general, the President had legal authority to act as he did in the Spring of 1861. Congress convened and made sure everyone knew it, dotting the I's and crossing the T's.

There is no doubt of the President's ability to call for the Militia; it is defined in the law itself. You might argue that his reason was insufficient or wrong, but you cannot possibly argue with his authority to do so.

On certain items (enlarging the standing army and Navy, spending money, habeas corpus, etc.) Lincoln's only real justification was the need to act in an emergency. In a time of peace, he would have been in the wrong -- but it was undeniably a time of war.

its in the constition, only congres can declare war, and a blockade is an act of war, ergo only congres can decalre a blockade.

No, Hanny. There is a distinct difference between "declaring war" (which the President can't do) and "waging war" (which the President can do if circumstances allow it).

A "blockade" is NOT a "declaration of war". "Acts of war" are NOT "declarations of war". If you think they are, you are wrong.

But if we were, just for the sake of argument, to accept your quirky definition as well as the disputed "right of secession", we would have to conclude that the Confederacy and or the seceding states had long since "declared war" on the United States before Lincoln ever took the oath of office in March of 1861. Beseiging Fts Sumter and Pickens, firing on US flag vessels, seizing US property, money, facilities, equipment, etc. are all normally considered examples of "acts of war". Attacking Ft. Sumter certainly is. Interning US troops peacefully withdrawing from Texas as POWs certainly is. Your argument weould then seem to be that the seceding states had individually and together, "declared war" upon the US somewhere between December of 1860 and March of 1861. In that case, the US is under attack, and the President's actions are not only legal -- they would be almost required of him by his oath.

POTUS directes the mil when called into service as per the constition, he had limiyted authority to call it into service in extreme cicamstances, and coercion of states was not one of them.

Here's the problem: One of two circumstances MUST apply when Lincoln acts.
1) EITHER the US has been attacked by a foreign enemy
2) OR the US has been attacked by an internal enemy.

No matter which you pick, Lincoln's actions are authorized.

when called into service, the US mil is indeed directed by POTUS, what POTUS did not have in 1860, was the right and duty and authority to call militia up to coerce states.

There was a lot of debate over this in those days. As I have often said, the most common US opinion was that the states had no "right of secession" and the Federal government had no right to "coerce them to do their duty. But all that melts away when the Southern states choose to attack the rest of the country.


trice said:
The US never declared war on the Barbary states. That is the logical and legal truth.

Madison asked congress for permision to DOW but was turned down, an example of POTUS not being able to DOW at will,
heres what you ought to have pasted fromhttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32170.pdf

That source presents the same information I have already posted. It disagrees with the position you are taking.

For example, it says:
1801-05​
Tripoli. The First Barbary War included the U.S.S. George
Washington
and Philadelphia affairs and the Eaton expedition, during which a few marines landed with United States Agent William Eaton to raise a force against Tripoli in an effort to free the crew of the

Philadelphia.
Tripoli declared war but not the United States,

although Congress authorized U.S. military action by statute.

I have already said the same thing in at least two other posts.


Ah, that would be 100% of the time. Any act of war is also a DOW.

Nope. You are simply and completely wrong on this.

Tim
 
US Official Declaration of War

By Hanny's definition, firing on Ft. Sumter was a DOW because firing on US military forces and installation to force their surrender is an act of war.
 
The United States recognized secession as insurrection

"The Congress shall have Power...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
Article I, Section 8

Under this power Congress passed and the president signed, the several Confiscation acts which took personal property from private individuals, deemed in insurrection against the United States. Several of these confiscations made it to the Supreme Court, which decided that the U.S. Congress was withing its power to confiscate property from those in insurrection against the United States.
 
Dear List Members;

I like to add another analogy to the declarations of war and such.

In giving land to foreign governments to establish an embassy and ambassadors representing their country. The USA thus has declared as was the practice; it is to be respected and or recognized as foreign soil; thus not treated as American ground by a foreign nation/country's ground.
To rush in the gates and ruff up or make threats on the assembly of one or more persons on embassy grounds; it is much in the same--an attack on their nation. USA Embassy grounds around the globe have same grounds of operation as they do here.

Now, that said -- Government property is called 'reservations' to which creates 'territory' subjected to Government law not county or state law; although cooperative in majority of cases; as some bases/reservations--such as Fort Belvoir--civilians travel through freely; no fences or security for the Fort's grounds, save for a few buildings.

Forts and Government reservations do not represent the state, county and or town; but--represent the US Government. I believe that General Beauregard, a former head of West Point clearly knew the collateral effect by firing on Fort Sumter. Clearly an act of war; same with the taking of hostages, e.g. Army personnel; the assault on persons--violation of any written law regardless of level of enforcement. The theft, same thing.

No matter how one slices the potato; it was the aggression by the secession sympathizers; who put into motion the rebellion. Although Virginia was not the original instigator; they were the buffer state that was in the way of getting to those involved in the rebellion.

The issue, from what I see--was the ability to treat states as their own sovereign nation; thus having authority to forbid anybody from entering their state. Otherwise, an invasion of her 'sacred soil.' The Federal position, was although States are sovereign; the citizenship of all Americans should entitle any person to enter and pass through unmolested and unthreatened.

The rebellion forces firing on Ft. Sumter was just plain wrong. All the excuses in the world, there is no justification in provoking war like responses. Bible says turn other cheek, but--doesn't say one has to put up with a weapon at the throat--right of defense; has been the standard of world civilization.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
 
US Official Declaration of War

It would be well if we pause and refresh ourselves in the cool waters of Lincoln's defense of his policy and his actions, in his own words.
Lincoln's policy, is clearly stated in his Inaugural Speech of March 4, 1861. A description of his actions in pursuance of that stated policy, is found in his Message to Congress in Special Session, July 4, 1861.
In his Special Message, Lincoln not only describes on what principal he rejects the theory of Session, but elaborates on why it Must be actively resisted.
Obviously it is not required that one accepts Lincoln's own words and actions, but if one is interested, at all, on what He did and Why, there are many worse sources (a few on this board).
 
By Hanny's definition, firing on Ft. Sumter was a DOW because firing on US military forces and installation to force their surrender is an act of war.

No, because the ilegal ocupation of SC property allows the use of force by SC, to compel them to vacate.
 
In Hanny's world, the President is simply an impotent figurehead.

No, simply when he acts without authority, his actions are unconstitional and meerly acts of usurption, not different than any other tyrants.
 
It would be well if we pause and refresh ourselves in the cool waters of Lincoln's defense of his policy and his actions, in his own words.
Lincoln's policy, is clearly stated in his Inaugural Speech of March 4, 1861. A description of his actions in pursuance of that stated policy, is found in his Message to Congress in Special Session, July 4, 1861.
In his Special Message, Lincoln not only describes on what principal he rejects the theory of Session, but elaborates on why it Must be actively resisted.
Obviously it is not required that one accepts Lincoln's own words and actions, but if one is interested, at all, on what He did and Why, there are many worse sources (a few on this board).

Indeed, its because of his own words, we know what he did, he himslef thought was unconstitional.
 
No, because the ilegal ocupation of SC property allows the use of force by SC, to compel them to vacate.

According to South Carolina law, passed by the state legislature back in the 1830s and recorded in the state records, Ft. Sumter belonged to the United States of America. Your statement is based on a false assumption, and is therefore false.

Tim
 
No, simply when he acts without authority, his actions are unconstitional and meerly acts of usurption, not different than any other tyrants.

Lincoln regarded himself as acting during the emergency as the agent of Congress, which was not available to act because it was in recess. That is why so many of his actions were described as being subject to review by Congress when it re-convened. That is a very constitutional approach. Given the difficulties of communication and travel in those days, this was a fairly normal thing, although obviously exacerbated by the threat of armed enemies assaulting the country.

Tim
 
The Confederate argument would be better left as a "preemptive strike." I can understand a fear of having a major port subject to US interference; the "South Carolina property" argument is weak.

J. Davis had cautioned Governor Pickens to not fire on Sumter as it was a "point of pride." When issuing the order, it became not a matter of SC property but a matter of Confederate government action.

ole
 
No, simply when he acts without authority, his actions are unconstitional and meerly acts of usurption, not different than any other tyrants.
Much of what he did, he did with Constitutional authority. When some of what he did was questioned, to which he said something like, "Am I to lose the whole because I lost a part?"

Whether he actually violated parts of the Constitution, it does not follow that the violation is "not different than any other tyrants." Tyrants generally continue to serve themselves; It can be amply shown that what Lincoln did was to serve and preserve the Union.

ole
 
Back
Top