View single post by Johan Steele
 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:48 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352

Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote: Johan-

  Do you really believe that the Lincoln Administration would have allowed actions filed by states wishing to secede from the Union to be heard without any retaliation? Do you really believe that Abraham Lincoln would have abided by a Supreme Court decision allowing the states to secede?  Yes, I don't believe the men who constructed Secession had any intention of going to any kind of court, that wasn't what they were interested in.

  The historical events of 1861 suggest otherwise. In the case of Maryland, elected officials of the city of Baltimore and of the state legislature were arrested to prevent any kind of convention from meeting to decide on the question of secession. (There was a good chance at the time that Maryland would not have voted to secede).  Do you recall what Lincoln had to do to even make it to DC?  I think he had every reason to worry, and to take actions to prevent treason and a very real threat of the seizure of DC and the overthrow of a duly elected US govt.  Yes, I insist on calling it treason because I am a firm believer in Blackstones definition of the word as it was the definition used by the men who studied Law at the time.

  Like President Jackson did a generation earlier, President Lincoln chose to completely ignore actions by the Supreme Court that impeded him. (Ex parte Merryman, for one). He said very clearly that he would not accept secession. The southerners took him at his word.  Yet they seceded prior to his coming to office, they struck before reasoned argument would or could be used.

  It would seem likely to conclude that if, lets say, the last four states that seceded had instead peacefully petitioned the US Supreme Court for permission to do so, then the officials of those states would have been treated the same way that the ones in Maryland were.  I don't think so, it needed a spark.  Those last four waited until violence erupted to step off the fence.  Davis needed Ft Sumter and the guaranteed action of Lincoln to either make the US look weak or overbearing.  Either way he had a win win.

  If poor old Roger Taney and his court had been allowed to hear the cases , and had decided that secession was legal, then that elderly gentleman would probably have spent the last three years of his long life in a military prison.  Yet Taney never spent a day in jail did he and his dislike and works against LIncoln and his administration were anything but friendly.

  It should be clear that the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 made war inevitable, regardless of what actions the southerners took regarding federal property. His re-election sealed the fate of the Confederacy.  I can agree w/ that, I believe however that the Democrats engineered their own defeat in 1860 knowing a Republican would give them the ammunition they needed for a Secession bid.


Was Lincoln right?  I don't know for certain but I do think he was right to fight instead of rolling over onto his back and surrendering.  I firmly believe that his wait and see policy was working, Secession popularity was fading it was seen by many as an effete joke before Ft Sumter when all were forced to understand that the CS was serious about it and were willing to go to war to get what they wanted.

 Close Window