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.
Lincoln didn't have authority to demand such from the south either, or use military force against Southern States under the false pretense of such demands.
Legally, that's actually a really interesting question and depends on what sort of entity you consider the "Southern States" to be. Are they wayward provinces in rebellion, or are they a separate nation at war with the United States?
If the CSA were to be considered a separate nation at war with the US - and that was of course how the CSA looked upon themselves, remember - then all CSA territory under Union control was occupied enemy territory, like Germany after WWII. In which case the President can issue whatever order he wants to. That's what happens when you lose a war, the victor makes the rules. (Of course, Lincoln couldn't enforce any orders on territory not under Union control in 1863, and the EP was just a gesture there.)
On the other hand, if the CSA were to be considered rebel provinces rightfully under US control, then the US Constitution would, at least in theory, still apply. That would make the EP highly problematic. But the Southern States couldn't very well yell "That's unconstitutional!" when they'd decided a few years earlier that the US Constitution just didn't apply to them.
It was a political chess move more than anything else - bolstered French and British support for the Union (more precisely, ruled out French and British support for the Confederacy), and cost Lincoln dearly among anti-abolitionist war supporters in the North.
Outside the realm of legal niceties: There was a shooting war going on, so the time for courtroom disputes was long gone. This was simply a well-executed piece of classical 19th-century hard-nosed realpolitik, worthy of a Palmerston or a Bismarck.
It may have not been the only result, but there is another reason for my view of the war. Race is a major player of this. Slaves couldn't vote. After Reconstruction, voting was basically impossible for Blacks in the South. What would it matter to me what kind of power struggle was going on if I couldn't vote? How would it help me? If Blacks were considered citizens(and not property) to begin with and treated as such, maybe I would care more. The power struggle between the states and the feds, well, maybe there was a power struggle for this reason: The Southern states were too dependent of slave labor and were not willing to let it go. If I was living back then, I would have most certainly been a slave. It would not have helped ME. Slavery was a big part of why there was that power struggle. That power struggle manifested itself during the 1950s and 1960s with the Civil Rights movement. Alot of the Southern states, particularly Georgia and Mississippi, were resisting it. As a Black person, I would have been more than happy to have the federal government to come in and enforce things because the state level has proven itself to be inept and racist. Barry Goldwater, however, felt that the states should decide if they wanted to implement the civil rights measures, particularly voting. If it was left up to the states, nothing would have happened.
I feel that there are times when the federal government MUST step in and enforce its will, especially if a particular segment of the population is being oppressed. History is part of why I don't trust states rights.
I strongly identify with your point of view. I just see other perspectives, too, and I think that history shouldn't be just about one point of view. What I love about your posts is that it's personal to you. History should be personal. It's people like you who keep history alive. I just think it's important for the discussion on this thread that other perspectives and viewpoints be included.
The war has been re-branded as celebrations come up to drastically play down the role of slavery, and the fact it even happened. Instead many are making it all about "states rights" while the good ol' southern boys were defending their homes from the warring North.
Screw that one of the tantamount reasons to secession was to keep human beings as property I guess.
Not that simple. The issue of slave labor was involved, either centrally or peripherally, in all or virtually all of the reasons for the war but there is a lot of nuance that is poorly understood today and, further, difficult to understand through the lens of modern political awareness.
The result is "Screw that" to any interpretation that may not fit the "bad slaving scum vs. good freedom people" cliff-notes version.
Did slaves aid in the war production of the southern states? If so, the President of the United States as commander in chief, doesn't have the authority to destroy or confiscate the war making material of an enemy force?
Did not the so-called Confederate States having steal federal property, raise arms against the government of the United States and in so doing enter into open insurrection? If so, the President of the United States as commander in chief doesn't have a sworn obligation to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic?
Interesting.
This is exactly why the hotheads in South Carolina were wrong to open fire on Fort Sumter. But Lincoln was deliberately provoking those hotheads. Because he didn't want secession to be decided by the courts.
More than a third of all households throughout the states that made up the Confederacy seems to be to be larger than "a tiny percentage of people".
It was not one third of all households. A more comprehensive estimate:
Slavery in the antebellum South was not a monolithic system; its nature varied widely across the region. At one extreme one white family in thirty owned slaves in Delaware; in contrast, half of all white families in South Carolina did so. Overall, 26 percent of Southern white families owned slaves.
In 1860, families owning more than fifty slaves numbered less than 10,000; those owning more than a hundred numbered less than 3,000 in the whole South. The typical Southern slave owner possessed one or two slaves, and the typical white Southern male owned none.
I strongly identify with your point of view. I just see other perspectives, too, and I think that history shouldn't be just about one point of view. What I love about your posts is that it's personal to you. History should be personal. It's people like you who keep history alive. I just think it's important for the discussion on this thread that other perspectives and viewpoints be included.
There are other points of view here. Maybe from the view of many Southerners, there is a feeling of not wanting to be told what to do. On the other hand, history is a personal thing for me, as it is for many other people. I think because it is personal, that I do alot of research on subjects such as the Civil War.
There are other points of view here. Maybe from the view of many Southerners, there is a feeling of not wanting to be told what to do. On the other hand, history is a personal thing for me, as it is for many other people. I think because it is personal, that I do alot of research on subjects such as the Civil War.
Well, you are appreciated!
I just plain love history. The Civil War isn't even a favorite topic, there are many other historic periods I find more interesting. I participate on a lot of Civil War threads on this forum because people like yourself are so interesting to read, and because learning about the different perspectives makes my understanding of the war more comprehensive.
But Lincoln was deliberately provoking those hotheads. Because he didn't want secession to be decided by the courts.
Once again, opinion stated as fact and very bad opinion at that.
The real historical facts are that Lincoln, and Secretary of State Seward did everything that was reasonably within their powers to avoid conflict. On this point the historical record is quite clear. However to pre-empt any further silly counter arguments with regard to Sumter (just one of many federal forts and facilities forcefully taken) as president, Lincoln had a sworn obligation to defend the integrity of the U.S.
As for the ridiculous notion that Lincoln didn't want the issue decided in court, there wasn't a single attempt by a single secessionist state to introduce legislation in the Congress or to put forth a single court challenge to their secession. In point of fact much of the theft of government property took place before ordinances of secession were even introduced by their state commissions (or whatever you want to call them).
You, now there are few events in human history that have been as throughly documented as the Civil War. There is simply too many primary sources and contemporaneous documentation from both the United States government, its leaders, and those of the insurrectionist states, for you to continue to try and BS your way through this discussion.
Once again, opinion stated as fact and very bad opinion at that.
The real historical facts are that Lincoln, and Secretary of State Seward did everything that was reasonably within their powers to avoid conflict. On this point the historical record is quite clear. However to pre-empt any further silly counter arguments with regard to Sumter (just one of many federal forts and facilities forcefully taken) as president, Lincoln had a sworn obligation to defend the integrity of the U.S.
As for the ridiculous notion that Lincoln didn't want the issue decided in court, there wasn't a single attempt by a single secessionist state to introduce legislation in the Congress or to put forth a single court challenge to their secession. In point of fact much of the theft of government property took place before ordinances of secession were even introduced by their state commissions (or whatever you want to call them).
You, now there are few events in human history that have been as throughly documented as the Civil War. There is simply too many primary sources and contemporaneous documentation from both the United States government, its leaders, and those of the insurrectionist states, for you to continue to try and BS your way through this discussion.
I'm sorry Ovcatto, but it's not my opinion. Lincoln chose that confrontation at Fort Sumter. There are several documents that show this. I will try to find links for you.
As for the "ridiculous notion", um, why would the secessionist states introduce legislation or put forth court challenges to their secession? They didn't want to challenge their secession. The better question is why didn't the federal government legally challenge secession? Where are the federal government court challenges? Why? Because Lincoln's Supreme Court Taney's Supreme Court. Chief Justice Taney. Dred Scott decision. A Southerner. A justice who had indicated he would side with the secessionists. And why wouldn't he? Didn't New England talk about seceding a few decades earlier? Did the federal government enact any legislation then to stop states from seceding? The Civil War settled the secession issue. Because the Constitution as it existed in 1859 did not. The federal government couldn't let the matter go to this Supreme Court. Lincoln even toyed with the idea of imprisoning Taney at one point.
I just plain love history. The Civil War isn't even a favorite topic, there are many other historic periods I find more interesting. I participate on a lot of Civil War threads on this forum because people like yourself are so interesting to read, and because learning about the different perspectives makes my understanding of the war more comprehensive.
We both love history. That's something to take joy in. The Civil War is not my favorite thing to research. With that said, I research some things because I hear alot of things that are hard for me to believe. I think alot of my research has been more of a personal quest. Actually, one big topic I am researching is colonialism. My research is being driven, partly, by a need for some reconciliation.
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.
