NedBaldwin
Major
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Location
- California
Given the gravity of the situation, you would think the Lincoln government would have given the crisis some priority.
Seems to me that they did give it priority.
Given the gravity of the situation, you would think the Lincoln government would have given the crisis some priority.
And than can be turned around. Given the gravity of the situation, you would think the south would have given finding a peaceful solution thru Congress some priority.Given the gravity of the situation, you would think the Lincoln government would have given the crisis some priority.
I agree.Nothing hypocritical about it.
I dont think there was any ambiquity.
Iam sure you know how to use the search function but to help you:
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/did-the-south-have-legal-right-to-leave-the-union.104981/
That topic is full of explanations why what SC did was not legal.
(But Article VI, Clause 2 is a place to start.)
And than can be turned around. Given the gravity of the situation, you would think the south would have given finding a peaceful solution thru Congress some priority.
But no, they declared independence and started taking over federal facilities by force month before Lincoln even took office. Had they stayed in the Union they could have forces Lincoln to sit down and talk about it. If needed using Congress. But the moment they said they where no longer part of the Union there was no way for Lincoln to talk with them, without giving support to their claim.
Yet you just agreed with me that there is no ambiquity. There really wasnt. The South knew what it was up against.Article VI, Clause 2 is about as clear mud on the right of secession, stating that this clause expressly forbade secession is an example of the growing federal legislation from the bench and the kind of ambiguity the South was up against.
The 10th Amendment doesnt provide the justification they needed.The Confederate Founding Fathers could have just as easily turned to the 10th amendment if they thought justification and permission from a hostile regime was necessary before going their own way.
I agreed with you where?Yet you just agreed with me that there is no ambiquity. There really wasnt. The South knew what it was up against.
I find Article VI, Clause 2 to be as clear as pure mountain spring water.
I also see no reason to claim it has anything to do with "growing federal legislation from the bench".
The 10th Amendment doesnt provide the justification they needed.
They turned to the only justification available to them -- rebellion.
And since it was such a unclear issue, you would think that peace loving people would have tried going thru the USSC or Congress or calling a Constitutional conventionWhere in the US Constitution? Do you think a bunch of unilateral secessionists were big enough hypocrites to put something in the 1787 constitution prohibiting unilateral secession? If the prospect was such an onus, you would think their descendants would have at least made the attempt to add a constitutional amendment to clear up any ambiguity.
Yupp right in the middle of a brand new adminastration, with half the appointees not even picked yet...But, in the end its clear from the Confederates own mouths that they had wanted to seize Sumter even before Lincoln took office, so to portray them as having nothing but peaceful thoughts until they were turned away is bogus...Given the gravity of the situation, you would think the Lincoln government would have given the crisis some priority.
About 6 posts previous to this when you replied to me with "I agree".I agreed with you where?
About 6 posts previous to this when you replied to me with "I agree".
Yupp right in the middle of a brand new adminastration, with half the appointees not even picked yet...But, in the end its clear from the Confederates own mouths that they had wanted to seize Sumter even before Lincoln took office, so to portray them as having nothing but peaceful thoughts until they were turned away is bogus...
He felt he needed to appease those cabinet members and others in theRepublican constituency who were wanting war. Lincoln chose not to pursue a peaceful solution.So in Lincoln's in mind, the Sumter crisis was so low a priority on his agenda that couldn’t spare a few hours to talk with Confederate diplomats that might prevent a war?
Guess it took "thousands of incendiary cannonballs" to force Lincoln to listen, and to deliver a message that the secessionists were serious.In Lincolns mind talking to two rebels would be a sign of support for their claim of sovereignty. So naturally he could not talk with them.
Had SC been in the union and had they represented the State, then he could have talked with em.
When ever The Dali Lama meet politicians around the world... China complain, for exactly that reason.
He felt he needed to appease those cabinet members and others in theRepublican constituency who were wanting war. Lincoln chose not to pursue a peaceful solution.
Isn't this a bit 'head of a pin' stuff now?
The goal for Lincoln should have been to keep the 8 remaining slaveholding states that had not seceded from leaving. The seven that did secede had a harder chance for independence.The only peaceful solution on Lincoln’s mind was, miracles of miracles, the seceded states would, on their own volition, would return to his union without a war to force them back.
I did not reply to the wrong post. If your time is wasted, it is your own fault.You replied to the wrong post, you had me wasting my time looking for a supposed agreement with you about Article VI, Clause.
If I need to be clearer, I agreed because those unilateral secessionists included nothing in the constitution that expressly forbade unilateral secession.