Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ovcatto may correct me on this, but I was interpreting the thread's purpose to be tracking events of 150 years ago...today, not selecting from a menu of all the Civil War years for this particular day.
As such, on December 21, 1860, President Buchanan first put down on paper what was to be his reactive policy toward secession. In short it may be described as "It is not my business." Buchanan's approach was for the executive to be non provocative and inactive, while arrangements were made for South Carolina represenatives to meet with Congress to sort through the legalities.
His written summary was to be in response to the letter of notification of secession which he had received from SC governor Pickens, but because Pickens withdrew the notification before the President could send his response, it was never sent. It has survived... Life of James Buchanan: fifteenth ... - Google Books
Quote:
Hence I have declined for the present to reinforce these forts, relying upon the honor of South Carolinians that they will not be assaulted whilst they remain in their present condition; but that commissioners will be sent by the convention to treat with Congress on the subject . I say with Congress because, as I state in my message, "Apart from the execution of the laws, so far as this may be practicable, the Executive has no authority to decide what shall be the relations between the Federal Government and South Carolina. He has been invested with no such discretion. He possesses no power to change the relations heretofore existing between them, much less to acknowledge the independence of that State. This would be to invest a mere executive officer with the power of recognizing the dissolution of the confederacy among our thirty-three sovereign States. It bears no resemblance to the recognition of a foreign de facto government, involving no such responsibility. Any attempt to do this would, on my part, be a naked act of usurpation."
Buchanan is ruling that the executive branch has no authority to intervene in the matter. One could argue that he was being a strict contructionalist, but one could also argue that it was an awfully convenient interpretation in that it afforded Buchanan the means for escaping responsibility for what was to follow. In fairness to Buchanan, we should keep in mind that he was acting before the events with which we are all familiar came to pass. He did not know that there would be a Civil War, he did not know how seriously secession should be taken. Further, the response is in keeping with the general philosophical disposition of Buchanan which called for a government of restraint and minimal interference. Buchanan had been an excellent attorney at law before entering politics, so it is unsurprising that he would seek a remedy in the legalities of the matter before any other reaction.
ovcatto may correct me on this, but I was interpreting the thread's purpose to be tracking events of 150 years ago...today, not selecting from a menu of all the Civil War years for this particular day.
Thanks! I mistakenly failed to be more specific.
The thread to be successful must be chronological, Dec 21, 1860/Dec 21, 201, so on and so forth.
In response to the secession crisis, Governor Buckingham, of Connecticut announces that today will be a day of fasting and prayer that the republic may survive and the union be preserved.
Apparently the people of Connecticut were insufficiently pius.
In Tennessee, Senator Andrew Johnson, who was from the Eastern section which had little use for slaves, came out against secession, calling it an unconstitutional act. For his efforts, he was burned in effigy by the pro secessionist citizens of Memphis.
And in Springfield, Illinois, the president-elect, Abraham Lincoln, composed a letter to future CSA vice president, Alexander Stephens. In this letter, Lincoln outlined what had been his position all along...that as President he had no intention of interfering with the institution of slavery where it existed. He pointed out that the Republican party had pledged to oppose only the expansion of slavery to new territories.
Quote:
Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.
The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us.
The first openly hostile troop operations of the war took place on this day, 150 years ago.
Castle Pinckney, Fort Moultrie and Fort Sumter were the three defensive installations guarding the sea entrance to Charleston, South Carolina. Major Anderson had been occupying the first two positions, but deciding that they were untenable because his force was so small, he decided to retire with entire command to Fort Sumter.
As Anderson was making his determination to withdraw, the South Carolina militia was making a determination to sieze the two positions by force. They assembled three companies of infantry, shipped them to Castle Pinckney and came thundering ahore with leveled muskets.
Their opposition turned out to be a single Union officer, the last man of Anderson's command who was preparing to leave. In that no bloodshed had been required to carry their objective, the Union officer was allowed to row off to Sumter and rejoin his unit.
Here's what Castle Pinckney looked like in 1860:
http://frankleslie.com/thesoldierfull/46_47.jpg (broken link)
The first openly hostile troop operations of the war took place on this day, 150 years ago.
I'm glad you brought this little tidbit out because it is another piece of evidence that belies the argument that the South was goaded into starting the war since this occurred three months before Lincoln took office.
I'm glad you brought this little tidbit out because it is another piece of evidence that belies the argument that the South was goaded into starting the war since this occurred three months before Lincoln took office.
I think that the act of secession was sufficient grounds for war from the Unionist point of view. Here was a State saying "As of today we are no longer going to comply with the legal requirements we undertook when we ratified the Constitution. Federal law no longer applies here."
From the Federalist position South Carolina remains under Federal jurisdiction regardless of their declarations. South Carolina must submit to Federal authority, or it must be compelled to submit. A minority may break up the union on its own authority, or it cannot. The Union obviously cannot survive signing off on the doctrine that any State may act unilateraly to shrink the size of the nation, the policy was always going to be submit or face force.
Who fires the first shot in such a matter...does not really matter apart from whatever propaganda value is to be gained by being able to say "The other guys started it." Since both sides wound up saying that anyway, who started what came to be of little consequence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
