I partly agree. Lincoln's call for volunteers was the bone-of-contention Virginia needed to secede, but the vote was very close and not really conducted fairly.
Not close at all, by Delegates ( 88 to 55) and when put to State referendum, it was adopted by a 3 to 1 ratio with a 90% electorate turn out.
If Lincoln could have waited to call for volunteers until some incident occurred, which would have then justified him calling for volunteers, but not have given Virginia grounds to secede, then things might have changed.
POTUS has no discretion, the Constitution requires his action, he is compelled to act, Thats what Lincoln explains, that's why his calling up of the Militia is for all States who have seceded, not for the actions of some at Sumpter. He wants to act, its the whole basis of the Republican party, ( what's wrong with our political system is secession), so we simply re write History and deny States are sovereign and therefore secession becomes insurrection.
Agreed. Lee never abandons Virginia. Different idea of loyalty than today.
No. What has changed is the law, the Republican introduce the new loyalty oath for Mil and civilians alike that replace the prior loyalty oath that each citizen of a citizen took to there state. There was no such legally entity as a citizen of the USA who was not first a citizen of a State, and that State had a primal claim to fealty from that citizen.
Lee only took charge of the Virginia army by chance, because when Johnston was wounded, he was the only general available who Jefferson could entrust with the duty. If Johnston had not been wounded, Lee might well have been asked to go west to replace Beauregard and/or Bragg, especially after Perryville.
Except that the CS fought here because it was Lee plan of operation, Johnston had not wanted to do so and wanted to retreat, his second din command ( Smith) who took over was of the same mind. April 17th Lee and Randolph argued for an attack and defence of the lower Peninsula, ( Davis opted for Lee plan,) Johnston to retreat and abandonment, Orders to Johnston and Jackson ( to detract from Union concentration by operations away from the main body) came from Lee who oversaw the instructions given to both, when Johnston was hit, Davis gave command in the field to Lee as it was Lees conception of operation being acted on. Lee declined on every occasion to leave VA for service out of VA, and was always allowed to stay in VA.
??? Anderson moved his men from Moultrie to Sumter, because Sumter was more defensible with his small garrison. This had nothing to do with the republican party's manifesto.
POTUS gave Anderson orders to stay in Moultrie, through the mil chain of command, POTUS elect gave instructions to Scott to retake all federal property when he took office, to make that easier, Scott gave orders to Anderson to allow him to hold the most easily defendable location, Anderson chose Sumpter and went there taking possession of it by a bayonet charge against single watchman, and 450 workmen employed by SC in building the fort, SC having spent two thirds of the cost of Sumpter after Congress lacked the funds to build it, it was not yet a federal post, not owned by the Federal government but easily to most defendable location in the area. POTUS was aghast when told of the move " Not only without my orders but against my orders" which helps explain why he left the mess to Lincoln since he caused it.
Anderson was only there because Scott gave orders that allowed him to move his command, POTUS had given orders that he must not move as the USA and CSA had agreed that no movement would occur, in exchange the Miss was opened up for commerce, and all federal posts could draw upon supplies locally, but not moved or reinforced.
Lincolns orders are why Anderson is at Sumpter, because Lincoln already is committed to restoring the Union by force. Republican party doctrine is that there is no such thing as secession, its insurrection and will be treated as such.
There is no definitive answer to whether the Southern states had a legal right to secede.
In law there is. Secession to be unlawful requires a law to prevent it. Everything a citizen does that is not contary to an existing law, is legal. There were none preventing secession, in 1861. Insurrection ( by citizens in a State against the State or Federal property) requires the Gov or legislature or courts in a state to declare it to exist before any action can be taken against it. No such thing occurred. There is no law against secession in the US code. States cannot secccede now because all citizens are citizens of the USA not citizens of the separate States, so the States have no citizens whose primal fealty is theirs to command.
In SC in 1833 POTUS also called up the Militai, D Webster threatened him with impeachmnet unless he obtaineda force bill from Congress to authorise the use of force, POTUS sought and obtained it, in 1861 there are not enough States left in the Union to pass a force bill who agree with the Republican party. The uSA AG writesa brief telling POTUS that he has no authority to call up the Militai and will by law requirea force bill. Lincons removes him from office and apoints a republican AG with a different view of the law.
Not furnishing the militai is insurection, Del disbanded its rather than send them, KY refused and both States are in insurection, yet not named or treated as such by Lincoln who was acting on party inpretation of the law, not the laws wording.
The mass secession of southern states was also not the first time there was a threat of secession. Already in 1786 the question was raised. See Shays’ Rebellion. At that time the idea of its legality was not contested, but that does also not mean that it was legal.
It was contested because 3 times Congress had been denied the right to coerce state by Military action, Shays was insurection by a part of state against the state. Thas who insurection is wording in US code, it is not worded by a state against the Union. there was no code for insurection by a State, it did not exist.
Shays rebellion required the Gov permission for troops to enter his State, it required a court to rule that insurrection had in fact taken place. Both occurred before Federalised troops entered into the State, being held at the State line till notified.
1643 each seperate UK colony either acepted crown or Parliment as its soveriegn, in 1776 each colony seperatly secceded from the UK Crown, and in the Treaty of Paris sovreignty passed from UK Crown to each seperate colony. Under the Articles of Confederation each State was still a soveriegn, the AoC terminated, despite a constitutional clause requiring all States to so agree, by unlateral secession from it, leaving for 18 months RI and NC as the AoC Union liviing alongside the newer Union. RI governemnt prolonged its s in office and denied a State referdum of secession. It would eventually occur and RI joins the newer Union without leaving the AoC. Madsion discribbed this as a more perfect Union, as the states excerised an atribute of sovreiegnty by poular referendum by State Ballot as to enter of leave a political Union, rather than the elected delgates who had done so on the behalf of the electorate.Constitution comes into effect when x number of States have joined, therfore those outside are still sepertae soveriegn entitys. The worrd peretual is removed from the Constitution, perpetual in treaty laws means untill ended by competent authority. The competent authority is the citizens of the State. Its they who created their States in the first place, and once they had Satte Constitutions, were legaly able to act collectivly in a Union. Secession is an act taken by competent authority, only a sovereign can excercise that right. Today the body poltic is the entire cizens, in 1860 its was the seperate States with citizens of the Satytes who had rights in other States gaurenteed by the Constitution, which has a supremacy clause that shows all Sattes are equal sovriens, and only by delegating authority are they subject to federal law being supreme over Statte laws.
As madison explains ‘Who are the parties to…[the Constitution]? The people – but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.”
Congress agreed with Madsion whenever they voted on the nature of the compact, “Resolved, That the people of the several States thus united by the constitutional compact, in forming that instrument, and in creating a general government to carry into effect the objects for which they were formed, delegated to that government, for that purpose, certain definite powers, to be exercised jointly, reserving, at the same time, each State to itself, the residuary mass of powers, to be exercised by its own separate government; and that whenever the general government assumes the exercise of powers not delegated by the compact, its acts are unauthorized, and are of no effect; and that the same government is not made the final judge of the powers delegated to it, since that would make its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among sovereign parties, without any common judge, each has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.
US Congress 1833, motion passed and won by vote in congress
Resolved, That in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the States adopting the same acted severally as free and independent sovereignties, delegating a portion of their powers to be exercised by the Federal Government for the increased security of each, against dangers domestic as well as foreign; and that any intermeddling by any one or more States, or by a combination of their citizens, with the domestic institutions of the others, on any pretext, whether political, moral, or religious, with the view to their disturbance or subversion, is in violation of the Constitution, insulting to the States so interfered with, endangers their domestic peace and tranquillity--objects for which the Constitution was formed--and, by necessary consequence, serves to weaken and destroy the Union itself.
US Congress 1860 motion passed 36 to 19 by vote in congress.
Madison to d Webster during nullification crises, telling Webster he was just wrong It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several States, who were parties to it; and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. (Letter from James Madison to Daniel Webster, March 15, 1833)
Second the Colonies in N America we governed under the UK Constitution, 15th Article of the James I Charter to form colonies in N America, gives all UK citizens the same rights as if they were in England. ( see rights of Englishmen) Colonies had their representatives in the HoP, who btw abolished the Stamp etc act after the Crown legally put in place under Royal warrant without HoP consent. Under UK Constitutional law the parties to the social contract, (social contract law 101 the government agrees to govern by the consent of the governed according to the laws, when that fails it is a right to alter or abolish that government**) are allowed to secede, as in the instance of the GR in the UK of 1689, the case of colonies seceding from Crown authority in 1643-46 etc.
** Madison on how that woks in US legal system "If we consider the federal Union as analogous not to the social compacts among individual men: but to the conventions among individual States. What is the doctrine resulting from these conventions? Clearly, according to the Expositors of the law of Nations, that a breach of any one article, by any one party, leaves all the other parties at liberty, to consider the whole convention as dissolved, unless they choose rather to compel the delinquent party to repair the breach". On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a national, but a federal act.
That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.
Lincoln definitely stated in his inaugural address that he had no intentions to challenge the legality of slavery.
Slavery existed over the entire USA, USSC told everyone so, so any owner can go with his property anywhere. They can go into a Terr and become citizens, and in time create new Slave States. Republican States enacted liberty laws, ( forbidding the entry of a slave or free negro) the courts struck them down as unconstitutional. Lincoln and the republicans refused to allow its spread, despite the law, its the political refusal on the spread of slavery thats the point, slavery as an institution had the highest constitutional protection possible in 1860.
In his speech he told every State they would be in insurection and he will invade if they do not pay import duty at the point of entry. This had the opoiste effect the game gives in its text box.
Lincoln stressed where it existed, he ment not in the free soil States, that no new Slave states can be created, and therefore the political representation of the Slave owning States would easily be outvoted as only new free States can be created. The effect on slave owning States went further than political extinction ( no effective politcal voting block) as they had 20% annual growth in slaves, and now had no ability to export it to new Terr to ease social issues, exploit new resources and so on, so Lincolns political party manifesto, as expressed in his inaugural was that slavery where it existed was fine, as long as they payed there tax while thinking they were not in the Union, because he would send in the Army when you refused to do so as that was insurrection because your unable to secede.
"These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under what appeared to be a popular demand and public necessity, trusting then as now that Congress would readily ratify them."
In other words, Lincoln proposed that it was possible to violate his oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" for the alleged greater good of coercing seceded States back into the Union — a duty which neither the Constitution nor any of its framers had delivered into his hands. Thomas Jefferson had likened the Constitution to a great chain specifically designed to bind down the general Government and limit its powers only to those enumerated therein.
The President's duty is indeed to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," but to draw from this the conclusion that he may, in the absence of Congress, execute laws of his own making is contrary to the clear wording of the Constitution. If, in his judgment, "extraordinary occasions," such as invasion or rebellion, require a special session of Congress, the President is empowered by the Constitution to "convene both Houses," whose duty it would thereafter be to determine what legislation or public announcements are warranted by the circumstances. Having decided that a rebellion threatened the Union when Fort Sumter fell into Confederate hands on the thirteenth of April, Lincoln's paramount duty was to call Congress into immediate special session. Instead, he chose to postpone that convening for nearly three months, during which time he usurped Legislative powers by calling forth 75,000 volunteers, increasing the regular Army and Navy beyond their peace-time size, and, in essence, declaring war on the Southern States by blockading their ports. The Constitution granted him none of these powers.
??? regardless of what the republican party wished, Lincoln was president. What a republican congress might do, is another question, but that does not mean that Lincoln could not veto laws he did would not accept. Trying to say that Lincoln was forced by ... what indeed?.. to prosecute the war is simply not true.
Lincoln did not veto W VA secession from VA, despite only 32,000 votes cast to secede from VA, which had over a million voters. When your like secession in your favour its ok, when you don't its insurrection. Lincoln orders the US Mil to retake all federal property before taking office, he orders Militia into service to coerce all the States who have seceded,, both are in line with Republican Party manifesto. Both are illegal. When NYC threatened to secede, because tit then faced compete ion from an economic rival with a 20% lower tariff that ment they faced economic ruin, Lincoln met and told them the States who had seceded were to be invaded and restored to the Union and the tariff problem would be solved, he then borrowed 20,000 million from their banks to fund doing it, at a nice fat interest bearing debt rate. NY saw the financial gain and stayed loyal.
Lincoln chose to wage war, because he believed his party manifesto was the right way, a better for all, way forward and arguably it was. To govern you need to win, they won at the ballot, the next problem was to keep those you need to govern, to do that ment re writing history and the USA legal system, because States were going to secede as they were sovereigns with that right, so Republicans published books that made the Union give sovereignty to the States, as opposed to the historical fact it was the other way around.
As to the Republicans in Congress:
F.A. Conway of Kansas: In Congress defeating H Hamblin motion to restore the Union, and insteade setting the stage for reconstruction.
Sir, I am not in favor of restoring the Constitutional relations of the slaveholders to the Union, nor of the war to that end. On the contrary, I am utterly, and forever opposed to both. I am not in favor of the Union as it exists to-day. I am in favor of recognizing the loyal states as the American nation, based as they are on the principle of freedom for all, without distinction of race, color, or condition. I believe it to be the manifest destiny of the American nation to ultimately control the American continent on this principle. I conceive, therefore, that the true object of this war is to revolutionize the national Government, by resolving the North into the nation, and the South into a distinct public body, leaving us in a position to recognize the latter as a separate state. I believe the direction of the war to any other end is a perversion of it, calculated to subvert the very object it was designed to effect.
Conway went on to state, "I have never allowed myself to indulge in that superstitious idolatry of the Union so prevalent among simple but honest people, nor that political cant about the Union so prevalent among the dishonest ones. I have simply regarded it as a form of government, to be valued in proportion to its merits as an instrument of national prosperity and power." In other words, the Union was useful to the Republican party as long as it suited their purposes, but it was a thing to be cast aside in favor of revolution if it stood in their way. Thaddeus Stevens was even more blunt:
This talk of restoring the Union as it was, and under the Constitution as it is, is one of the absurdities which I have heard repeated until I have become sick of it. There are many things which make such an event impossible. This Union never shall, with my consent, be restored under the Constitution as it is!...
The Union as it was, and the Constitution as it is — God forbid it! We must conquer the Southern States, and hold them as conquered provincesThaddeus Stevens, Congressional Globe (Thirty-Seventh Congress, Third Session), 9 December 1862
Lastly the Republicans can overide his veto as they have the number of votes to do so, because its based on sitting voters, not absent in insurection, but why let the maths get in the way.
Federal law already covered that states cannot refuse citizenship to any citizen of the United States.
Fact free. Logic free.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The entire premise of this thought experiment was simple to invent a situation in which Lee might have remained in the Federal army. Even if Lincoln had not called for volunteers, there might have been dozens of other occurrences which might have equally pushed the Virginia citizenry to vote to seceded, whether the vote were done fairly or not.
Constitution gives to each State the right to count its own votes, in VA 90% voted and 3 to 1 adopted the overwhelming vote of their delegates to secede.
VA would never have not seceded when coercion was used. Republicans wanted to use coercion, they can only govern with their economic model when they do not have an economic enemy competing next door to them, they had to use coercion as its the only way to return the States to the UNion.
??? again, I have no idea of what you are trying to say. The Sam Houston event reflects his stance on remaining within the Union. You seem to be jousting windmills.
No you don't understand because your not well read on the WBTS, Sam Houston was for secession to create Texas out of Mexico, he was against secession from the USA because the outcome would not be in Texas interest, when offered command of 50,000 Union troops in late 61 to govern Texas, Houston turned the offer down flat, so the event is unhistorical as it goes against what happened in history.
“We, the Delegates of the people of Virginia do, in the name of the people, declare that the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the people, may be resumed by them whensoever's the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression. . . .[On this basis], we do assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended, on the 17th day of September, 1787.” (Elliot’s Debates Vol. I, p. 327.)
IMHO, Lee's greatness was a myth.
Except that no one else in the war, was better at causing casualties than was Lee in command as the ANV, he was twice as proficient as Grant.
* Sam Houston is not a plausible what if either, he had fought one secession war and won it, his objection to fighting another was that it was unwinnable.
To secede from the Union and set up another government would cause war. If you go to war with the United States, you will never conquer her, as she has the money and the men. If she does not whip you by guns, powder, and steel, she will starve you to death. It will take the flower of the country-the young men.
No it is very plausible. The event is that cavalry loyal to Sam Houston join the union not that Sam Houston resists and Texas goes Union.
Except that its Union Cav under a Union officer, given by the Union, all of which are no longer in the State, to Houston, who has lost office and voted out by a large margin because he represents a minority view. He has no widespread support at all, yet N Texas loyalty drops off the map.
It is not that Sam Houston after denouncing the confederate legislature and saying it had no authority to speak for Texas answers the call for 50,000 volunteers. It is a cavalry regiment that agrees with Houston and decides to fight for the Union. Nothing historic about this event.
Except it never happens, Houston refuses to act against his State, hje was offered 50,000 troops to prevent secession, he declined, saying "Allow me to most respectfully decline any such assistance of the United States Government"."Texas military participation for the Union was insignificant, around 500 per year, and never in the whole war did a Union force come into existaence in Texas out of Texans citizens.
First Texas, formed in NO in 1862 had hardly any Teas citizens, being formed up of "the strength of the Texas Federal Regiments consisted primarily of Mexicans, Germans, and Irishmen." Its entire wartime service resulted in 12 deaths. When it was sent into Texas, over half deserted rather than fight against there native Statte.
I suppose it is debatable but White vs. Texas is about as definitive as it gets in the US. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700
Interstingly the court used whats in the AoC which was ended by unlatereral secesion by all but 2 of its members for its premise of perpetual intent.
Texas V White is a case from after the WBTS, every case before then confirms that States are sovereigns, historical facts are that they exercised that sovereignty to create the Union, leave it to create a newer one that does not contain the world perpetual, threaten to use it by almost every State at least once, on debt bearing bonds, secession was not before the court, neither side argued it, the debt bearing bonds issue was overturned later, everything the court says, is dicta and nothing more, and once the debt bearing bond case that overturns Texas V White, makes it even less than that.
We can always as Lincoln if he really thought what he did was lawfull.
"I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution through the preservation of the Union."
Olmstead v. United States
"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the laws scrupulously. Our government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by it's example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of criminal laws the end justifies the means --- to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal --- would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face. .
