Posted on 08/11/2020 6:22:46 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
SABINE FARM, Friday, Aug. 3,1860. GENTLEMEN: My high respect for you induces me to hasten to reply to your note. If LINCOLN be elected, I think the Southern States should withdraw from the Union; all, if not all, then as many as will, and if no other, South Carolina alone, in the promptest manner' and by the most direct means. To comprehend the full significance of LINCOLN's election, we must remember the principles, the character and the sentiment of the Republican Party. The vital principle of this party is negro equality, the only logical finale of which is emancipation. To see this, it is only necessary to look at their platform, which, though intended for obvious reasons of policy to appear conservative, yet raises the veil in part. This platform says, "We hold that all men are created equal -- that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights -- that among these are life, liberty," &c.; and this on the motion of Mr. GIDDINGS. This is intended to include negroes. It follows, therefore, according to Republican faith, that no one can be rightfully held in Slavery.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
First session: November 21, 2015. Last date to add: Sometime in the future.
Reading: Self-assigned. Recommendations made and welcomed.
Posting history, in reverse order
To add this class to or drop it from your schedule notify Admissions and Records (Attn: Homer_J_Simpson) by reply or freepmail.
Imagine the bloodshed that could have been spared if one patriot had put a bullet in boyce’s brain.
I’m confused. I don’t see anything about tariffs being the reason for secession and I’ve been told many times on this forum that tariffs are the real reason, not slavery or negro equality.
Tariffs were a long time irritant for the South. They were not the reason the South seceded. They were, however, the reason Lincoln provoked the war by sending a fleet to Fort Sumter. Without the South, the US would have much less tariff income, and the US government was already hurting for money.
In March 1861 Lincoln had told the Senate in response to their proforma question to him at the end of their session, that he didn't have anything important to tell them, so that they could close their session, which they did as usual, sine die. Sine die meant the Congress couldn't reconvene themselves until December, unless Lincoln called them into session before then (he did reconvene them about two and a half months after Fort Sumter). He used those two and a half months to get the war started, so that Congress would not have the gumption to stop the war when they reconvened. Congress reconvened on Lincoln's day of choice, July 4th. Congress passed resolutions saying the war was to preserve the Union.
The same day in March that Lincoln told the Senate that he had nothing important to tell them, he secretly asked that a plan be developed for sending a fleet to Fort Sumter. This was basically the same plan that a majority of his cabinet and military men had told him earlier would start a shooting war.
Remember that in Lincoln's 1861 inaugural speech, he basically said to the South, you can keep your slaves, but I want your tariff income. After Fort Sumter was lost, Lincoln told a group from the Baltimore YMCA who had come to Washington to urge him to seek peace, "And what is to become of the revenue? I shall have no government -- no resources."
I have a printed copy of the Baltimore Sun article where Lincoln was reported to have said that. I would post a copy of it, but my version was given to me by the University of Texas library, and on the copy they made for me it says "copyrighted" in very fine print. The words of the article themselves are no longer under copyright, but the image of that newspaper on the microfilm roll it was contained on and printed from is copyrighted.
I got around the copyright by posting links to the Baltimore Sun article printed in other publicly available 1861 newspapers. Those papers are available to the public in the Library of Congress's Chronicling America collection of old newspapers. Here is a link to copies of a few of those newspapers that reprinted the Sun article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3443027/posts?page=328#328
I forgot to include you on my post 6.
The same day in March that Lincoln told the Senate that he had nothing important to tell them, he secretly asked that a plan be developed for sending a fleet to Fort Sumter. This was basically the same plan that a majority of his cabinet and military men had told him earlier would start a shooting war.
Yes, Lincoln started issuing orders the next day in order to get a conflict started. A war was underway before the Congress could say anything about it. Lincoln kept them out of session until July 4th.
A little less well known is Lincoln's intent to run that play again at the end of the war.
Excerpted from:
Lincoln and Johnson, Their Plan of Reconstruction and the Resumption of National Authority
First Paper
by Gideon Welles
Galaxy Magazine, April 1872, pp. 525-527 (article from 521-33)
[Page 525]When I went to the Cabinet meeting on Friday, the 14th of April, General Grant, who had just arrived from Appomattox, was with the President, and one or two members were already there. Congratulations were interchanged, and earnest inquiry was made whether any information had been received from General Sherman. The Secretary of War came late to the meeting, and the telegraph office from which we obtained earliest news was in the War Department. General Grant, who was invited to remain, said he was expecting hourly to hear from Sherman, and had a good deal of anxiety on the subject.
The President remarked that the news would come soon and come favorably, he had no doubt, for he had last night his usual dream which had preceeded nearly every important event of the war. I inquired the particulars of this remarkable dream. He said it was in my department -- it related to the water; that he seemed to be in a singular and indescribable vessel, but always the same, and that he was moving with great rapidity toward a dark and indefinite shore; that he had had this singular dream preceding the firing on Sumter, the battles of Bull Run, Antietam, Gettysburg, Stone river, Vicksburg, Wilmington, etc. General Grant remarked with some emphasis and asperity that Stone River was no victory -- that a few such victories would have ruined the country, and he knew of no important results from it. The President said that perhaps he should not altogether agree with him but whatever might be the facts, his singular dream preceded that fight. Victory did not always follow his dream, but the event and results were important. He had no doubt that a battle had taken place or was about being fought, "and Johnston will be beaten, for I had this strange dream again last night. It must relate to Sherman; my thoughts are in that direction, and I know of no other very important event which is likely just now to occur."
Great events did indeed follow. Within a few hours the good and gentle as well as truly great man who narrated his dream was assassinated, and the murder which closed forever his earthly career affected for years, and perhaps forever, the welfare of his country.
The session of the Cabinet on that eventful day, the last of President Lincoln's life, was chiefly occupied on the subject of our relations with the rebels -- the communications, the trade, etc. The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. McCulloch, who had but recently entered upon his duties, was embarrassed in regard to captured cotton, permits, and traffic. It was generally agreed that commercial intercourse with the rebel States should be speedily established. Mr. Stanton proposed that communication should be reopened by his issuing a military order, authorizing and limiting traffic; that the Secretary of the Treasury would give permits to all who wished to trade, and he (Stanton) would order the vessels to be received into any port.
I suggested that instead of a military order from the Secretary of War, the President should issue an Executive order or proclamation for opening the ports to trade, and prescribe therein the duties of the several Departments. Mr. McCulloch expressed his willingness to be relieved from Treasury agents, and General Grant declared himself unequivocally opposed to them and the whole Treasury system of trading within the rebel lines as demoralizing.
In regard to opening the ports to trade, Mr. Stanton thought it should be attended with restrictions, and that traffic should not extend beyond the military lines. I proposed opening the whole coast to every one who wished to trade, was entitled to coast license, and should obtain a regular clearance. I wished the reestablishment of unrestricted commercial and social intercourse with the southern people with as little delay as possible, from a conviction that it would conduce to a more speedy establishment of friendly relations. General Grant concurred with me, and recommended that there should be no restrictions east of the Mississippi. The President referred the whole subject to the Secretaries of the Treasury, War, and Navy, and said he should be satisfied with any conclusions to which they might arrive, or on which they could agree.
At the close of the session Mr. Stanton made some remarks on the general condition of affairs and the new phase and duties upon which we were about to enter.
[Page 526]
He alluded to the great solicitude which the President felt on this subject, his frequent recurrence to the necessity of establishing civil governments and preserving order in the rebel States. Like the rest of the Cabinet, doubtless, he had given this subject much consideration, and with a view of having something practical on which to base action, he had drawn up a rough plan or ordinance which he had handed to the President.
The President said he proposed to bring forward that subject, althought he had not had time as yet to give much attention to the details of the paper which the Secretary of War had given him only the day before; but that it was substantially, in its general scope, the plan which we had sometimes talked over in Cabinet meetings. We should probably make some modifications, prescribe further details; there were some suggestions which he should wish to make, and he desired all to bring their minds to the question, for no greater or more important one could come before us, or any future Cabinet. He thought it providential that this great rebellion was crushed just as Congress had adjourned, and there were none of the disturbing elements of that body to hinder and embarrass us. If we were wise and discreet, we should reanimate the States and get their governments in successful operation, with order prevailing and the Union reestablished, before Congress came together in December. This he thought important. We could do better; accomplish more without than with them. There were men in Congress who, if their motives were good, were nevertheless impracticable, and who possessed feelings of hate and vindictiveness in which he did not sympathize and could not participate. He hoped there would be no persecution, no bloody work, after the war was over. None need expect he would take any part in hanging or killing those men, even the worst of them. Frighten them out of the country, open the gates, let down the bars, scare them off, said he, throwing up his hands as if scaring sheep. Enough lives have been sacrificed. We must extinguish our resentments if we expect harmony and union. There was too much of a desire on the part of some of our very good friends to be masters, to interfere with and dictate to those States, to treat the people not as fellow citizens; there was too little respect for their rights. He did not sympathize in these feelings. Louisiana, he said, had framed and presented one of the best constitutions that had ever been formed. He wished they had permitted negroes who had property, or could read, to vote; but this was a question which they must decide for themselves. Yet some, a very few of our friends, were not willing to let the people of the States determine these questions, but, in violation of first and fundamental principles, would exercise arbitrary power over them. These humanitarians break down all State rights and constitutional rights. Had the Louisianians inserted the negro in their Constitution, and had that instrument been in all other respects the same, Mr. Sumner, he said, would never have excepted to that Constitution. The delegation would have been admitted, and the State all right. Each House of Congress, he said, had the undoubted right to receive or reject members; the executive had no control over the matter. But Congress had nothing to do with the State governments, which the President could recognize, and under existing laws treat as other States, give them the same mail facilities, collect taxes, appoint judges, marshals, collectors, etc., subject, of course, to confirmation. There were men who objected to these views, but they were not here, and we must make haste to do our duty before they came here.
Mr. Stanton read his project for reorganizing, reestablishing, or reconstructing governments. It was a military or executive order, and by it the War Department was designated to reorganize those States whose individuality it assumed was sacrificed. Divested of its military features, it was in form and outline essentially the same as the plan ultimately adopted. This document proposed establishing a military department to be composed of Virginia and North Carolina, with a military governor. After reading this paper, Mr. Stanton made some addtional remarks in furtherance of the views of the President and the importance of prompt measures.
A few moments elapsed, and no one else speaking, I expressed my concurrence in the necessity of immediate action, and my gratification that the Secretary of War had given the outlines of a plan embodying his views. I objected, however, to military supervision or control, and to the proposition of combining two States in
[Page 527]
the plan of a temporary government. My idea, more perhaps than that of any other of the Cabinet, was for a careful observance, not only of the distinctive rights, but of the individuality of the States. Besides, Virginia occupied a different position from that of any other of those States. There had been throughout the war a skeleton organization in that commonwealth which we had recognized. We had said through the whole war that Virginia was a State in the Union -- that her relations with the Government were not suspended. We had acknowledged and claimed that Pierpont was the legitimate and rightful Governor, that the organization was lawful and right under him; that the division of the State, which required the assent of the legal State government, had been effected, and was claimed to be constitutional and correct. Were we now to ignore our own acts -- to say the Pierpont Government was a farce -- that the act creating the State of west Virginia was a nullity? My position on that question was different from others, for though not unfriendly to the new State, I had opposed the division of the State when it took place. The proposition to reestablish a State government in Virginia where there was already a State government with which we were acting, with Pierpont as governor, or to put it under military control, appeared to me a grave error. The President said my exceptions, some of them at least, were well taken. Some of them had occurred to him. It was in that view he had been willing that General Weitzel should call the leading rebels together, because they were not the legal Legislature of Virginia, while the Pierpont Legislature was. Turning to Mr. Stanton, he asked what he would do with Pierpont and the Virginia Constitution? Stanton replied that he had no apprehension from Pierpont, but the paper which he had submitted was merely a rough sketch subject to any alteration.
Governor Dennison thought that Pierpont would be no serious obstacle in the way, were that the only difficulty; but there were other objections, and he thought separate propositions for the government of the two States advisable.
I suggested that the Federal Government could assist the loyal government of Virginia in asserting, extending, and maintaining its authority over the whole State, but that we could not supersede or annul it.
The President directed Mr. Stanton to take the documents and have separate plans presented for the two States. They required different treatment. "We must not," said he, "stultify ourselves as regards Virginia, but we must help her." North Carolina was in a different condition. He requested the Secretary of War to have copies of the two plans for the two States made and furnished each member of the Cabinet by the following Tuesday -- the next regular meeting. He impressed upon each and all the importance of deliberating upon and carefully considering the subject before us, remarking that this was the great question pending, and that we must now begin to act in the interest of peace. He again declared his thankfulness that Congress was not in session to embarrass us.
The President was assassinated that evening, and I am not aware that he exchanged a word with any one after the Cabinet meeting of that day on the subject of a resumption of the national authority in the States where it had been suspended, or of reestablishing the Union.
If the Welles account of the last cabinet meeting in 1865 is accepted, Lincoln intended to start and end reconstruction while Congress was out of session. Virginia, and the other Confederate states, were to be returned to normal status while bypassing the radical congress. That information, if received by certain interests, could have inspired a bullet to Lincoln's head.
A little less well known is Lincoln's intent to run that play again at the end of the war.
Lincoln was consistent in not wanting Congress to mess up his plans and actions.
Here is an excerpt from a letter Carl Schurz wrote to Lincoln dated April 5, 1861, that said the following: 4/5/1861 Carl Schurz to Lincoln (my bold emphasis below):
Some time ago you told me, that you did not want to call an extra-session of Congress for fear of reopening the compromise-agitation. You were undoubtedly right then. But any vigorous act on the part of your Administration, any display of power and courage will remove that danger. If you first reinforce the forts and then call Congress together, the enthusiasm of the masses will be so great and overwhelming, that Congress will be obliged to give you any legislation you may ask for. You will be master of the situation, and supported by the confidence of the people, the government will be stronger than it ever was before.”
The letter was found some years ago in the Library of Congress by poster southernsunshine. Lincoln did not want compromise.
The letter was found some years ago in the Library of Congress by poster southernsunshine.
I recognize this Schurz quote from a very long time ago. I will have to research a source and get back to you.
In addition to what Schurz proposed, Lincoln delayed the date for Congress to reconvene until after Lincoln had invaded the South and had the war underway. The Northern populace and the US Congress reacted just like Schurz had forecast.
It is a shame that some of the Northern posters on these threads can't (or won't) see what Lincoln did.
As for the Baltimore Sun quote, it was fake-news at the time and is still fake history today.
The fact is that Lincoln's interest in Fort Sumter had nothing to do -- zero, zip, nada -- with tariffs collected there, because for all practical purposes, there were none, never had been.
The contribution of Charleston, SC, to the Federal treasury was effectively zero, which puts the lie to Lost Causer claims that it was all about tariffs.
The real reason was just what it seemed and everyone said at the time, openly: Federal authority over a Federal fort occupied by Federal troops and attempted to be resupplied by the Federal navy.
When Confederates assaulted that fort and forced it to surrender, those were acts of war against the United States, which our President and the American people responded to appropriately, period.
Everything else is pure nonsense, Lost Causer self-serving lies, Democrats intending to throw massive shade on the United States in general, on Republicans specifically and President Lincoln especially.
Don't buy it.
Finally, on the matter of Virginia, West Virginia and Lincoln's post-war intentions, it's well known that Lincoln intended to, I think his words were, "let them down easily".
It's the reason Lincoln changed his party's name to "Unity" from "Republican" and made Tennessee Senator Andrew Johnson his VP.
Who better than Johnson to implement Lincoln's plans in the event of Lincoln's death?
So Johnson's problems with the Republican Congress would likely have been Lincoln's problems too, though doubtless without impeachment.
But remember this, please: President Trump often says we are the party of Lincoln, Trump never says we're the party of Congress which impeached Johnson.
What does the Constitution say about who has the power to declare war, the President or Congress? Hint, check out Article I, Section 8.
If war was necessary, why did Lincoln wait two and a half months to reconvene Congress? What was he doing during those two and a half weeks? Here is a list:
Lincoln usurped the Constitutional power of Congress to raise and support armies and provide and maintain a navy
Lincoln usurped the power of Congress to declare war and regulate the ports
Lincoln usurped the power of Congress in suspending the writ of habeas corpus
Lincoln usurped the power of Congress to make and direct appropriations
Lincoln violated the Constitution in the searches and seizures he ordered
Lincoln abridged Constitutional freedom of speech in suppressing newspaper presses and arresting civilians for expressing political opinion
Lincoln violated the Constitution in arresting without civil processes citizens who were not subject to the rule of war
No president, even Barack Obama, has approached this level of unconstitutional acts.
As for the Baltimore Sun quote, it was fake-news at the time and is still fake history today.
If it were "fake-news," why didn't any of the thirty members of the Baltimore delegation that met with Lincoln on that occasion object to the content of the Sun article? In fact, one of the other Baltimore newspapers carried a basically similar article to the one in the Sun. Why did the Virginia Union-supporting guy, Baldwin, who met with Lincoln before the Fort Sumter battle and before the Baltimore delegation met with Lincoln, say that Lincoln told him a similar message about the revenue, a message that Baldwin told some of his fellow Virginians after meeting with Lincoln.
BJK, are you able to correctly identify today's fake news? I hope so.
The fact is that Lincoln's interest in Fort Sumter had nothing to do -- zero, zip, nada -- with tariffs collected there, because for all practical purposes, there were none, never had been.
Then, what was causing the collapse of the imports and import-related businesses in the North in March and April, 1861 as I and others have documented from contemporary newspaper reports and in Appleton's? Might it be the Morrill Tariff signed into US law on March 2, 1861? The North had shot themselves in the foot by passing a tariff substantially higher than the one the Confederacy had set up in February (which was essentially the same as the US tariff in effect before the Morrill Tariff).
In the face of what was happening in the Northern port cities, even Lincoln's Treasury Secretary Chase said the Morrill Tariff needed to be cancelled.
The contribution of Charleston, SC, to the Federal treasury was effectively zero, which puts the lie to Lost Causer claims that it was all about tariffs.
Tariffs weren't the reason the South seceded. The difference in tariffs between the North and the South resulting from the Republican-passed Morrill tariff created a big revenue problem for Lincoln, which he recognized, but you apparently don't. You call Lincoln's concern about revenue, "fake-news".
How was the Union to prevent importers from taking their imports to the South where they had to pay lower tariffs? By a blockade of Southern ports, that's how. How could a blockade be accomplished? It might be justified if the Union was at war with the Confederacy, which is what Lincoln accomplished by sending a fleet to Charleston with orders to fight their way in if opposed. Lincoln knew it would be opposed because Lincoln's representative Lamon had met with SC Governor Pickens in March, and the Governor had told him they would not allow a Federal warship into the port.
Besides, until news of Lincoln's fleet reached Charleston in April, the SC government allowed the troops in Fort Sumter to buy food in the city, since Major Anderson had turned down the Governor's offer of free food supplies back in January. Indeed, there are records of one such substantial food purchase by one of Anderson's underlings in the city in early April.
Finally, on the matter of Virginia, West Virginia and Lincoln's post-war intentions, it's well known that Lincoln intended to, I think his words were, "let them down easily".
I'm not sure what this has to do with Virginia and West Virginia. Be that as it may, Lincoln was being wise in letting the South "down easy." He had accomplished the subjugation of the South. Took him four years to do it to a South that was out manned and out resourced. Lincoln did not want to have to fight years of guerrilla warfare in the South, which might have happened if he treated the subjugated South badly.
In addition to what Schurz proposed, Lincoln delayed the date for Congress to reconvene until after Lincoln had invaded the South and had the war underway. The Northern populace and the US Congress reacted just like Schurz had forecast.It is a shame that some of the Northern posters on these threads can't (or won't) see what Lincoln did.
That reminded me of an old article.
Lincoln Starts a War
There can be no doubt that Lincoln waited for the Senate to adjourn and began a war as soon as it was out of session. He did not call them back into session until July 4, 1861 when the war was a fait accompli. He then delivered a message to the special session of congress where he engaged in a lack of candor.
There is an interesting sequence of events.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Within 8 days of taking office, orders of March 12, 1861 issued from the Lincoln administration to reinforce Fort Pickens and thereby violate the armistice that was in effect. These orders to Army Captain Vogdes were delayed until after the Senate adjourned on March 28, 1861 and then delivered by USS Crusader on March 31, 1861. Capt. Vogdes delivered them to Navy Captain Adams on April 1, 1861. Capt. Adams refused to comply with the orders.
No. 64. FORT SUMTER, March 6, 1861.
(Received A. G. O., March 9.)Col. S. COOPER, Adjutant-General U. S. Army:
COLONEL: I have the honor to report that a very large re-enforcement was landed last night at Cummings Point and bivouacs near No. 10. This morning it was marched out of sight, around the point of the island. Yesterday the three other guns were mounted in No. 10, thus completing its armament of four heavy pieces. They continued working yesterday at the places mentioned in my report, and are still so occupied to-day. A party has also been at work this morning on the Fort Moultrie glacis. Everything indicates activity and determination.
I had the honor to present in No. 58* my opinion of the strength of the army which will be necessary to force an entrance into the harbor. The presence here, as commander, of General Beauregard, recently of the U. S. Engineers, insures, I think, in a great measure the exercise of skill and sound judgment in all operations of the South Carolinians in this harbor. God grant that our country may be saved from the horrors of a fratricidal war!
I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.* No. 58, and several other of Anderson’s letters, not found.
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
Washington, March 12, 1861.Captain VOGDES, U. S. Army,
On board U. S. sloop-of-war Brooklyn, lying off Port Pickens:SIR: At the first favorable moment you will land with your company, re-enforce Fort Pickens, and hold the same till further orders. Report frequently, if opportunities present themselves, on the condition of the fort and the circumstances around you.
I write by command of Lieutenant-General Scott.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
E. D. TOWNSEND,
Assistant Adjutant-General.To: Captain I. Vogdes,
First Artiller, U. S. Army
on board Ship of War Brooklyn
off Fort Pickens,
Pensacola, Fla."
Delivery of these orders was delayed until after the Senate adjourned on March 28, 1861. They were delivered via USS Crusader to Capt. Vogdes, off Pensacola, on March 31, 1861, and by Capt. Vogdes to Navy Capt. Adams on April 1, 1861. Capt. Adams refused to comply with the orders, see below.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SENATE JOURNAL, March 25, 1861
Resolved, That the President be requested, if, in his opinion, not incompatible with the public interest, to communicate to the Senate the dispatches of Major Robert Anderson to the War Department during the time he has been in command at Fort Sumter.
SENATE JOURNAL, March 27, 1861
The following message was received from the President of the United States, by Mr. Nicolay, his Secretary:To the Senate of the United States:
I have received a copy of a resolution of the Senate, passed on the 25th instant, requesting me, if, in my opinion, not incompatible with the public interest, to communicate to the Senate the dispatches of Major Robert Anderson to the War Department during the time he has been in command of Fort Sumter.
On examining the correspondence thus called for, I have, with the highest respect for the Senate, come to the conclusion that, at the present moment, the publication of it would be inexpedient.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
Washington, March 26, 1861.
END of the Senate Journal for March 28, 1861:
Mr. Powell, from the committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States and inform him that, unless he may have any further communication to make, the Senate is now ready to close the present session by an adjournment, reported that they had performed the duty assigned them, and that the President replied that he had no further communication to make.Mr. Foster submitted the following resolution:
Resolved, That the Senate will adjourn without day at four o'clock this afternoon.
The Senate proceeded by unanimous consent to consider the said resolution; and, having been amended on the motion of Mr. Hale, it was agreed to as follows:
Resolved, That the Senate do now adjourn without day.
Whereupon
The President pro tempore declared the Senate adjourned without day.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lincoln did not fail to obtain Congressional approval because Congress was not in session, he waited until Congress adjourned and commenced to initiate a war.
To the Secretary of the NavyI desire that an expedition, to move by sea be got ready to sail as early as the 6th of April next, the whole according to memorandum attached: and that you co-operate with the Secretary of War for that object.
Signed: Abraham Lincoln
The memorandum attached called for:
From the Navy, three ships of war, the Pocahontas, the Pawnee and the Harriet Lane; and 300 seamen, and one month's stores.
From the War Department, 200 men, ready to leave garrison; and one year's stores.
April 1, 1861 by General Scott
April 2, 1861 approved by Abraham Lincoln
To: Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown, U.S. ArmyYou have been designated to take command of an expedition to reinforce and hold Fort Pickens in the harbor of Pensacola. You will proceed to New York where steam transportation for four companies will be engaged; -- and putting on board such supplies as you can ship without delay proceed at once to your destination. The object and destination of this expedition will be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known. Signed: Winfield Scott
Signed approved: Abraham Lincoln
April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. H.L. Scott, Aide de CampThis will be handed to you by Captain G.V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter.
To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about 200, to be immediately organized at fort Columbus, with competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence, with other necessaries needed for the augmented garrison at Fort Sumter.
Signed: Winfield Scott
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To Captain H.A. Adams
Commanding Naval Forces off Pensacola
Herewith I send you a copy of an order received by me last night. You will see by it that I am directed to land my command at the earliest opportunity. I have therefore to request that you will place at my disposal such boats and other means as will enable me to carry into effect the enclosed order.Signed: I. Vogdes, Capt. 1st Artly. Comdg.
Order of the Secretary of the Navy to Captain Adams, U. S. Navy, senior officer present off Pensacola, regarding cooperation with the Army for defense of Fort Pickens.
Confidential.Navy Department, April 6,1861.
Sir: Your dispatch of April 1 is received. The Department regrets that you did not comply with the request of Captain Vogdes to carry troops sent out in January last to reenforce the garrison of Fort Pickens. I have declined to land the men as Captain Vogdes requests, as it would be in direct violation of the orders* from the Navy Department under which I am acting.
The instructions from General Scott to Captain Vogdes are of old date (March 12†) and may have been given without a full knowledge of the condition of affairs here. They would be no justification to me. Such a step is too important to be taken without the clearest orders* from proper authority. It would most certainly be viewed as a hostile act, and would be resisted to the utmost. No one acquainted with the feelings of the military assembled under General Bragg can doubt that it would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war. It would be a serious thing to bring on by any precipitation a collision which may be entirely against the wishes of the Administration. At present both sides are faithfully observing the agreement entered into by the U. S. Government with Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase. This agreement binds us not to reenforce Fort Pickens unless it shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reenforce it. I saw General Bragg on the 30th ultimo, who reassured me the conditions on their part should not be violated. While I can not take on myself under such insufficient authority as General Scott’s order the fearful responsibility of an act which seems to render civil war inevitable, I am ready at all times to carry out whatever orders I may receive from the honorable Secretary of the Navy.
In conclusion, I beg you will please send me instructions as soon as possible, that I may be relieved from a painful embarrassment.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
H. A. Adams, Captain, Senior Officer Present.
Hon. Gideon Welles,
Secretary of the Navy, 'Washington, D. C.
Captain Adams REFUSED TO OBEY THE ORDER and reported to the Secretary of the Navy as follows:
The instructions from General Scott to Captain Vogdes are of old date (March 12) and may have been given without a full knowledge of the condition of affairs here.
It would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war; and would be resisted to the utmost.
Both sides are faithfully observing the agreement (armistice) entered into by the United States Government and Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase, which binds us not to reinforce Fort Pickens unless it shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reinforce it.
The Secretary of the Navy issued a CLASSIFIED response to Capt. Adams:
Your dispatch of April 1st is received. The Department regrets that you did not comply with the request of Capt. Vogdes. You will immediately on the first favorable opportunity after receipt of this order, afford every facility to Capt. Vogdes to enable him to land the troops under his command, it being the wish and intention of the Navy Department to co-operate with the War Department, in that object.Signed: Gideon Welles, Secty. of the Navy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To: Lt. D.D. Porter, USNYou will proceed to New York and with least possible delay assume command of any steamer available.
Proceed to Pensacola Harbor, and, at any cost or risk, prevent any expedition from the main land reaching Fort Pickens, or Santa Rosa.
You will exhibit this order to any Naval Officer at Pensacola, if you deem it necessary, after you have established yourself within the harbor.
This order, its object, and your destination will be communicated to no person whatever, until you reach the harbor of Pensacola.
Signed: Abraham Lincoln
Recommended signed: Wm. H. Seward
Telegram
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy YardFit out Powhatan to go to sea at the earliest possible moment, under sealed orders. Orders by confidential messenger go forward tomorrow.
Signed: Abraham Lincoln
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy YardYou will fit out the Powhatan without delay. Lieutenant Porter will relieve Captain Mercer in command of her. She is bound on secret service; and you will under no circumstances communicate to the Navy Department the fact that she is fitting out.
Signed: Abraham Lincoln
It was a real secret mission. Not even the Secretary of the Navy was aware that President Lincoln had relieved Captain Mercer and was "borrowing" the Powhatan (and the troops to reinforce Fort Sumter).
To: Captain Mercer, Commanding Officer, USS PowhatanThe U.S. Steamers, Powhatan, Pawnee, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane, will compose a naval force under your command, to be sent to the vicinity of Charleston, S.C., for the purpose of aiding in carrying out the object of an expedition of which the war Department has charge. The expedition has been intrusted to Captain G.V. Fox.
You will leave New York with the Powhatan in time to be off Charleston bar, 10 miles distant from and due east of the light house on the morning of the 11th instant, there to await the arrival of the transports with troops and stores. The Pawnee and Pocahontas will be ordered to join you there, at the time mentioned, and also the Harriet Lane, etc.
Signed: Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy
April 6, 1861
Lt. Porter took the Powhatan and sailed.
Seward sent a telegram to Porter: "Give the Powhatan up to Captain Mercer."
A dispatch boat caught up with Powhatan and delivered Seward's message.
Lt. Porter responded to Seward: "I received my orders from the President, and shall proceed and execute them.
Before leaving, Lt. Porter instructed the Navy Yard officials, "Detain all letters for five days."
Storms and boiler problems delayed Powhatan, but she arrived disguised and flying English colors.
Porter filed this report, April 21, 1861:
I had disguised the ship,* so that she deceived those who had known her, and was standing in (unnoticed), when the Wyandotte commenced making signals, which I did not answer, but stood on. [* The ship's name had been painted out, it was burning British coal, and flying British colors.]The steamer then put herself in my way and Captain Meigs, who was aboard, hailed me and I stopped.
In twenty minutes more I should have been inside (Pensacola harbor) or sunk.
Signed: D.D. Porter
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
U. S. TRANSPORT ATLANTIC,
[New York,] April 6, 1861 -- 2½ p. m.
Hon. WM. H. SEWARD, Secretary of State:DEAR SIR: By great exertions, within less than six days from the time the subject was broached in the office of the President, a war steamer sails from this port; and the Atlantic, built under contract to be at the service of the United States in case of war, will follow this afternoon with 500 troops, of which one company is sappers and miners, one a mounted battery. The Illinois will follow on Monday with the stores which the Atlantic could not hold.
While the mere throwing of a few men into Fort Pickens may seem a small operation, the opening of a campaign is a great one.
Unless this movement is supported by ample supplies and followed up by the Navy it will be a failure. This is the beginning of the war which every statesman and soldier has foreseen since the passage of the South Carolina ordinance of secession. You will find the Army and the Navy clogged at the head with men, excellent patriotic men, men who were soldiers and sailors forty years ago, but who now merely keep active men out of the places in which they could serve the country.
If you call out volunteers you have no general to command. The general born, not made, is yet to be found who is to govern the great army which is to save the country, if saved it can be. Colonel Keyes has shown intelligence, zeal, activity, and I look for a high future for him.
England took six months to get a soldier to the Crimea. We were from May to September in getting General Taylor before Monterey. Let us be supported; we go to serve our country, and our country should not neglect us or leave us to be strangled in tape, however red.
Respectfully,
M. C. MEIGS.
Honorable WM. H. SEWARD, Secretary of State:DEAR SIR: We expect to touch at Key West, and will be able to set things in order there and give the first check to the secession movement by firmly establishing the authority of the United States in that most ungrateful island and city. Thence we propose to send dispatches under cover to you. The officers will write to their friends, understanding that the package will not be broken until after the public has notice through the newspapers of our success or defeat. Our object is yet unknown on board, and if I read the papers of the eve of our departure aright our secret is still a secret in New York. No communication with the shore, however, will be allowed.
* * *
The dispatch and the secrecy with which this expedition has been fitted out will strike terror into the ranks of rebellion. All New York saw, all the United States knew, that the Atlantic was filling with stores and troops. But now this nameless vessel, her name is painted out, speeds out of the track of commerce to an unknown destination. Mysterious, unseen, where will the powerful bolt fall? What thousands of men, spending the means of the Confederate States, vainly beat the air amid the swamps of the southern coast, and, filling the dank forts, curse secession and the mosquitoes!
* * *
God promised to send before his chosen people an advance-guard of hornets. Our constant allies are the more efficient mosquitoes and sand-flies. At this time the republic has need of all her sons, of all their knowledge, zeal, and courage.
Major Hunt is with us, somewhat depressed at going into the field without his horses. His battery of Napoleon guns, probably the best field guns in our service, is to follow in the Illinois; but the traitor Twiggs surrendered his horses to the rebels of Texas, and the company
of well-trained artillerists finds itself, after eight years of practice in that highest and most efficient arm, the light artillery, going into active service as footmen. They, too, feel, the change deeply.
* * *
I am, most respectfully, your obedient servant,
M. C. MEIG,
Captain of Engineers.
See also the ship's log of the USS Supply. The Union forces started landing near Fort Pickens during the night of April 11, 1861 before shots were fired at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861.
Abstract log of the U. S. ship Supply, January 9 to June 14, 1861, Commander Henry Walke, commanding.April 11. -- At 9 p. m. the Brooklyn got Underway and stood in toward the harbor, and during the night landed the troops and marines on board, to reenforce Fort Pickens.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Order of General Scott, U. S. Army, to Colonel Brown, U. S. Army, appointed to command Department of Florida, regarding reenforcement of Fort Pickens.
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY
Washington, April 1, 1861.
SIR: You have been designated to take command of an expedition to reenforce and hold Fort Pickens, in the harbor of Pensacola. You will proceed with the least possible delay to that place, and you will assume command of all the land forces of the United States within the limits of the State of Florida. You will proceed to New York, where steam transportation for four companies will be engaged, and, putting on board such supplies as you can ship, without delay proceed at once to your destination. The engineer company of sappers and miners; Brevet Major Hunt’s Company M, Second Artillery; Captain Johns’sCompany C, Third Infantry; Captain Clitz’s Company E, Third Infantry, will embark with you in the first steamer. Other troops and full supplies will be sent after you as soon as possible.Captain Meigs will accompany you as engineer, and will remain with you until you are established in Fort Pickens, when he will return to resume his duties in this city. The other members of your staff will be Assistant Surgeon John Campbell, medical staff; Captain Rufus Ingalls, assistant quartermaster; Captain Henry F. Clarke, assistant commissary of subsistence; Brevet Captain George L. Hartsuff, assistant adjutant-general, and First Lieutenant George T. Balch, ordnance officer.
The object and destination of this expedition will be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known. The naval offlcers in the Gulf will be instructed to cooperate with you, and to afford every facility in their power for the accomplishment of the object of the expedition, which is the security of Fort Pickens against all attacks, foreign and domestic. Should a shot be fired at you, you will defend yourself and your expedition at whatever hazard, and, if needful for such defense, inflict upon the assailants all the damage in your power within the range of your guns.
Lieutenant-Colonel Keyes, military secretary, will be authorized to give all necessary orders and to call upon the staff department for every requisite material and transportation, and other steamers will follow that on which you embark, to carry reenforcements, supplies, and provisions for the garrison of Fort Pickens for six months. Captain Barry’s battery will follow as soon as a vessel can be fitted for its transportation. Two or three foot companies will embark at the same time with the battery. All the companies will be filled up to the maximum standard, those to embark first from the recruits in the harbor of New York. The other companies will be filled, if practicable, with instructed soldiers.
You will make Fort Jefferson your main depot and base of operations. Yoa will be careful not to reduce too much the means of the fortresses in the Florida Reef, as they are deemed of greater importance than even Fort Pickens. The naval officers in the Gulf will be instructed to cooperate with you in every way in order to insure the safety of Fort Pickens, Fort Jeff and Fort Taylor. You will fully communicate with them for this end, and will exhibit to them the authority of the President herewith.
The President directs that you be assigned to duty from this date according to your brevet rank in the Army.
With great confidence in your judgment zeal,and intelligence,J remain, respectfully,
WINFIELD SCOTT.
Brevet Colonel HARVEY BROWN, U. S. Army,
Washington, D. C.APRIL 2, 1861.
Approved:
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.[Enclosure.]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, April 1, 1861.
All officers of the Army and Navy to whom this order may be exhibited will aid by every means in their power the expedition under the command of Colonel Harvey Brown, supplying him with men and material, and cooperating with him as he may desire.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
Letter from Captain Vogdes, U. S. Army, commanding Fort Pickens, Fla., to Captain Adams, U. S. Navy, senior officer present off Pensacola, regarding violation of armistice.
FORT PICKENS, FLA., April 14, 1861.
DEAR CAPTAIN: General Bragg has just sent me a verbal message by his adjutant-general, Colonel Wood, requesting to know why the armistice had been violated by reenforcing Fort Pickens. In reply I stated that I never had been a party to any armistice, but that in landing from the Brooklyn and taking the command of Fort Pickens I had acted under orders from the General Government. He then stated that he was directed by General Bragg to demand from the late commander, addressing himself to Lieutenant Slemmer, why it had been violated on his part. He answered that he obeyed the orders of his Government. No further official communication passed between us.Your obedient servant,
I. VOGDES,
Captain, First Artillery, Commanding Fort Piekens.Captain H. A. ADAMS,
Commanding Naval Forces off Pensacola.
Letter from Brigadier-General Bragg, C. S. Army, commanding Confederate troops near Pensacola, to Captain Adams, U. S. Navy, senior officer present off Pensacola, regarding violation of armistice.
HEADQUARTERS TROOPS CONFEDERATE STATES,
Near Pensacola, Fla., April 14, 1861.
SIR: Your communication of the 13th instant, announcing the re-enforcement of Fort Pickens, was received by me this evening. How you could suppose I was aware of that fact, and that it was done by “order of the U. S. Government,” I do not understand, when it was accomplished under cover of the darkness of night and in violation of a solemn compact. I only wish I could construe the orders of your Government as a justification of the act.I am, sir, your obedient servant,
BRAXTON BRAGG,
Brigadier-General Commanding.Captain H. A. ADAMS,
Senior U. S. Naval Officer off Pensacola.
No war was ever declared, period, or would, by law, ever be declared in cases of rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence" and/or treason.
President Jefferson's 1807 Insurrection Act authorized Lincoln to do what he did.
And you well know all that, but keep lying about it anyway -- why?
rustbucket: "No president, even Barack Obama, has approached this level of unconstitutional acts. "
Nonsense, but no president, including Donald Trump has ever faced the level of organized Democrat armed resistance to the US Constitution as Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln absolutely acted as lawfully as possible under the circumstances, and no Congress or Supreme Court of the time or later has struck down or censured Lincoln's actions.
rustbucket: "If it were "fake-news," why didn't any of the thirty members of the Baltimore delegation that met with Lincoln on that occasion object to the content of the Sun article?"
Because they were all together in on it.
Any President is naturally concerned about Federal revenues, but Lincoln never elsewhere said that was the specific reason for his actions at Fort Sumter.
In all other conversations, the issue is framed in constitutional and national survival terms -- restoring the Union.
Ultimately, Confederate threats against Fort Sumter represented the most serious & direct national humiliation since... well... the burning of Washington, DC, by the Brits in the War of 1812.
Lincoln (like President Buchanan before him) could not let Sumter go without a fight.
rustbucket: "Why did the Virginia Union-supporting guy, Baldwin, who met with Lincoln before the Fort Sumter battle and before the Baltimore delegation met with Lincoln, say that Lincoln told him a similar message about the revenue, a message that Baldwin told some of his fellow Virginians after meeting with Lincoln. "
You bosom-buddy & "loyal Unionist", Baldwin, quickly became a Confederate Colonel and Congressman.
After the war he re-remembered his conversations with Lincoln as something very different from those Lincoln had with anyone else in 1861.
rustbucket: "Then, what was causing the collapse of the imports and import-related businesses in the North in March and April, 1861 as I and others have documented from contemporary newspaper reports and in Appleton's?
Might it be the Morrill Tariff signed into US law on March 2, 1861? "
Sure, but almost none of those new Morrill Tariffs would be collected in Charleston, or any other Confederate port except for New Orleans, and New Orleans was, what?, 5% of total US revenues?
And here's the point that everyone forgets: the Republicans' Morrill Tariff was intended to do the same thing as President Trump's tariffs & trade deals -- to put Americans first, to reduce our dependence on foreign manufacturers and support American jobs for American workers -- free workers, not slaves.
So if import revenues declined in early 1861, that was a totally expected result, having nothing to do with Confederate actions.
Indeed, Federal tariff revenues were $53 million in 1860, rose to $63 million in 1863 and $104 million in 1864.
And those latter came with zero input from Confederate states.
rustbucket: "In the face of what was happening in the Northern port cities, even Lincoln's Treasury Secretary Chase said the Morrill Tariff needed to be cancelled. "
And in due time Chase returned to his original & true political party -- Democrats, always willing to sacrifice American workers in the interests of globalism.
But in Chase's defense: at the most critical moment, in April 1861, Chase came around to Lincoln's position on Fort Sumter and supported the resupply mission.
rustbucket: "Tariffs weren't the reason the South seceded. "
You should tell that to your fellow Lost Causers, since I've had to argue the point endlessly with them.
rustbucket: "You call Lincoln's concern about revenue, "fake-news". "
Now, now, Rusty, you really are showing your Lost Causer credentials.
I said the Baltimore Sun report on Lincoln's view was fake-news because it's confirmed by no other legitimate sources.
It's one thing, and natural, to be concerned about Federal revenues, it's entirely different to claim that concern was the reason for Lincoln's resupply mission to Fort Sumter.
It wasn't.
rustbucket: "How was the Union to prevent importers from taking their imports to the South where they had to pay lower tariffs?"
Anyone with an IQ above room temperature would realize it made no sense to take products to, for example, Charleston, SC, pay a "lower" tariff and then pay a second, higher tariff, when those goods reimported into the United States!
The whole argument is just bogus to the max.
rustbucket: "...a blockade of Southern ports..."
Blockades were a normal part of war -- the Brits blockaded their rebellious American colonies and also the USA during the War of 1812.
Indeed, General Scott's "Anaconda Plan" was very likely first drawn up under Secretary of War Jefferson Davis to deal with a hypothetical future Southern rebellion.
Such blockades had nothing to do with Federal revenues and everything to do with preventing your enemy from the benefits of normal commerce, especially imports of military equipment.
rustbucket: "Lincoln did not want to have to fight years of guerrilla warfare in the South, which might have happened if he treated the subjugated South badly."
It was a fair trade: once abolition was absolutely accepted, including the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments, former Confederates were all effectively pardoned and readmitted as full citizens, leading to the end of reconstruction in 1876.
rustbucket: "What does the Constitution say about who has the power to declare war, the President or Congress? Hint, check out Article I, Section 8."No war was ever declared, period, or would, by law, ever be declared in cases of rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence" and/or treason. President Jefferson's 1807 Insurrection Act authorized Lincoln to do what he did.
And you well know all that, but keep lying about it anyway -- why?
Matthews v. McStea, 91 U.S. 7 (1875)
1. It was not until the 16th of August, 1861, that all commercial intercourse between the States designated as in rebellion and the inhabitants thereof, with certain exceptions, and the citizens of other States and other parts of the United States, became unlawful.2 A partnership between a resident of New York and other parties, residents of Louisiana, was not dissolved by the late civil war as early as April 23, 1861; and all the members of the firm are bound by its acceptance of a bill of exchange bearing date and accepted on that day, and payable one year thereafter.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas for the City and County of New York.
[...]
Mr. Justice Strong delivered the opinion of the court.
The single question which this record presents for our consideration is, whether a partnership, where one member of the firm resided in New York and the others in Louisiana, was dissolved by the war of the rebellion prior to April 23,1861.
That the civil war had an existence commencing before that date must be accepted as an established fact. This was fully determined in The Prize Cases, 2 Black, 635; and it is no longer open to denial. The President’s proclamation of April 19, 1861, declaring that he had deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, was a recognition of a war waged, and conclusive evidence that a state of war existed between the people inhabiting those States and the United States.
It must also be conceded, as a general rule, to be one of the immediate consequences of a declaration of war and the effect of a state of war, even when not declared, that all commercial intercourse and dealing between the subjects or adherents of the contending powers is unlawful, and is interdicted. The reasons for this rule are obvious. They are, that, in a state of war, all the members of each belligerent are respectively enemies of all the members of the other belligerent; and, were commercial intercourse allowed, it would tend to strengthen the enemy, and afford facilities for conveying intelligence, and even for traitorous correspondence. Hence it has become an established doctrine, that war puts an end to all commercial dealing between the citizens or subjects of the nations or powers at war, and “places every individual of the respective governments, as well as the governments themselves, in a state of hostility:” and it dissolves commercial partnerships existing between the subjects or citizens of the two contending parties prior to the war; for their continued existence would involve community of interest and mutual dealing between enemies.
Still further, it is undeniable that civil war brings with it all the consequences in this regard which attend upon and follow a state of foreign war. Certainly this is so when civil war is sectional. Equally with foreign war, it renders commercial intercourse unlawful between the contending parties, and it dissolves commercial partnerships.
But, while all this is true as a general rule, it is not without exceptions. A state of war may exist, and yet commercial intercourse be lawful. They are not necessarily inconsistent with each other. Trading with a public enemy may be authorized by the sovereign, and even, to a limited extent, by a military commander. Such permissions or licenses are partial suspensions of the laws of war, but not of the war itself. In modem times, they are very common. Bynkershoek, in his Qusest. Jur. Pub., lib. 1, c. 3, while asserting as a universal principle of law that an immediate consequence of the commencement of war is the interdiction of all commercial intercourse between the subjects of the States at war, remarks, “The utility, however, of merchants, and the mutual wants of nations, have almost got the better of the laws of war as to commerce. Hence it is alternatively permitted and forbidden in time of war, as princes think it most for the interests of their subjects. A commercial nation is anxious to trade, and accommodates the laws of war to the greater or lesser want that it may be in of the goods of others. Thus sometimes a mutual commerce is permitted generally; sometimes as to certain merchandise only, while others are prohibited; and sometimes it is prohibited altogether.” Halleck, in his “Treatise on the Laws of War,” p. 676 et seq., discusses this subject at considerable length, and remarks, “ That branch of the government to which, from the form of its constitution, the power of declaring or making war is intrusted, has an undoubted right to regulate and modify, in its discretion, the hostilities which it sanctions. ... In England, licenses are granted directly by the crown, or by some subordinate officer to whom the authority of the crown has been delegated, either by special instructions, or under an act of Parliament. In the United States, as a general rule, licenses are issued under the authority of an act of Congress; but in special cases, and for purposes immediately connected with the prosecution of the war, they may be granted by the authority of the President, as commander-in-chief of the military and naval forces of the United States.”
It being, then, settled that a war may exist, and yet that trading with the enemy, or commercial intercourse, may be allowable, we are brought to inquire whether such intercourse was allowed between the loyal citizens of the United States and the citizens of Louisiana until the 23d of April, 1861, when the acceptance was made upon which this suit was brought. And, in determining this, the character of the war and the manner in which it was commenced ought not to be overlooked. No declaration of war was ever made. The President recognized its existence by proclaiming a blockade on the 19th of April; and it then became his duty as well as his right to direct how it should be carried on. In the exercise of this right, he was at liberty to allow or license intercourse; and his proclamations, if they did not license it expressly, did, in our opinion, license it by very cogent implications. It is impossible to read them without a conviction that no interdiction of commercial intercourse, except through the ports of the designated States, was intended. The first was that of April 15, 1861. The forts and property of the United States had, prior to that day, been forcibly seized by armed forces. Hostilities had commenced; and, in the light of subsequent events, it must be considered that a state of war then existed. Yet the proclamation, while calling for the militia of the several States, and stating what would probably be the first service assigned to them, expressly declared, that, "in every event, the utmost care would be observed, consistently with the repossession of the forts, places, and property which had been seized from the Union, to avoid any devastation, destruction of or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.” Manifestly, this declaration was not a mere military order. It did not contemplate the treatment of the inhabitants of the States in which the unlawful combinations mentioned in the proclamation existed as public enemies. It announced a different mode of treatment, — the treatment due to friends. It is to be observed that the proclamation of April 15, 1861, was not a distinct recognition of an existing state of war. The President had power to recognize it, The Prize Cases, supra; but he did not prior to his second proclamation, that of April 19, in which he announced the blockade. Even then, the war was only inferentially recognized; and the measures proposed were avowed to be “ with a view to . . . the protection of the public peace and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have assembled.” The reference here was plainly to citizens of the insurrectionary States; and the purpose avowed appears to be inconsistent with their being regarded as public enemies, and consequently debarred from intercourse with the inhabitants of States not in insurrection. The only interference with the business relations of citizens in all parts of the country, contemplated by the proclamation, seems to have been such as the blockade might cause. And that it was understood to be an assent by the Executive to continued business intercourse may be inferred from the subsequent action of the government (of which we may take judicial notice) in continuing the mail service in Louisiana and the other insurrectionary States long after the blockade was declared. If it was not such an assent or permission, it was well fitted to deceive the public. But in a civil more than in a foreign war, or a war declared, it is important that unequivocal notice should be given of the illegality of traffic or commercial intercourse; for, in a civil war, only the government can know when the insurrection has assumed the character of war.
If, however, the proclamations, considered by themselves, leave it doubtful whether they were intended to be permissive of commercial intercourse with the inhabitants of the insurrectionary States, so far as such intercourse did not interfere with the blockade, the subsequent act of Congress passed on the thirteenth day of July, 1861, ought to put doubt at rest.
The act was manifestly passed in view of the state of the country then existing, and in view of the proclamation the President had issued. It enacts, that in a case therein described, a case that then existed, “it may and shall be lawful for the President, by proclamation, to declare that the inhabitants of such State, or any section or part thereof where such insurrection exists, are in a state of insurrection against the United States; and thereupon all commercial intercourse by and between the same and the citizens thereof, and the citizens of the rest of the United States, shall cease and be unlawful so long as such condition of hostility shall continue.” Under authority of this act, the President did issue such a proclamation on the 16th of August, 1861; and it stated that all commercial intercourse between the States designated as in insurrection and the inhabitants thereof, with certain exceptions, and the citizens of other States and other parts of the United States, was unlawful. Both the act and the proclamation exhibit a clear implication, that before the first was enacted, and the second was issued, commercial intercourse was not unlawful; that it had been permitted. What need of declaring it should cease, if it had ceased, or had been unlawful before? The enactment that it should not be permitted after a day then in the future must be considered an implied affirmation that up to that day it was lawful; and certainly Congress had the power to relax any of the ordinary rules of war.
We think, therefore, the Court of Appeals was right in holding that the partnership of Brander, Chambliss, & Co., had not been dissolved by the war when the acceptance upon which the plaintiff in error is sued was made.
The judgment is affirmed.
Your documents reminded me of Major Anderson's letter to Washington dated April 8, 1861, a few days before the battle at Fort Pickens. In that letter, Anderson had said that the coming of Lincoln's expedition to Fort Sumter was the beginning of the war. The Official Records list it in Confederate Communications along with Anderson's request to destroy it. It wasn't destroyed because the South Carolinians started intercepting Anderson's mail to Washington once they learned that Lincoln was sending an expedition down to Fort Sumter.
Anderson sent two communications, both given the number 96, apparently in separate envelopes, along with instructions to destroy one of them. You can guess which one Anderson wanted destroyed. Here below are Anderson's three communications (Anderson's request to destroy one of the letters numbered 96, and both of the letters numbered 96). I inserted dashed lines between them so that they are distinguishable as separate documents. My bold red font below.
Col. L. Thomas, Adjutant- General:
Dear Colonel: In another envelope I shall send a No. 96, which you will be pleased to destroy.
That God will preserve our beloved country, is the heart-felt prayer of your friend,
R. A.
----------------------------------------------------
No. 96.] Fort Sumter, S. C, April 8, 1861.
Col. L. Thomas, Adjutant-General, Washington, D. C.:
Colonel: I have the honor to report that the South Carolinians have since about noon yesterday been very actively engaged in strengthening their works on Morris Island. I pray that God will avert the storm which seems impending over us, and restore amicable and permanently-pacific relations between the States who still stick to the old Union and those who have formed another Government in the South.
I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.
P.S.—I omitted acknowledging the receipt of the letter from the honorable Secretary of the 4th instant.
[Inclosure No. 3.]
-----------------------------------------------
No. 96.] Fort Sumter, S. C, April 8, 1861.
Col. L. Thomas, Adjutant-General U. S. Army:
Colonel : I have the honor to report that the resumption of work yesterday (Sunday) at various points on Morris Island, and the vigorous prosecution of it this morning, apparently strengthening nearly all the batteries which are under the fire of our guns, shows that they either have received some news from Washington which has put them on the qui vive or that they have received orders from Montgomery to commence operations here. I am preparing by the side of my barbette guns protection for our men from the shells, which will be almost continuously bursting over or in our work.
I had the honor to receive by yesterday's mail the letter of the honorable Secretary of War, dated April 4, and confess that what he there states surprises me very greatly, following as it does and contradicting so positively the assurance Mr. Crawford telegraphed he was authorized to make. I trust that this matter will be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, when the South has been erroneously informed that none such will be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout our country.
It is, of course, now too late for me to give any advice in reference to the proposed scheme of Captain Fox. I fear that its result cannot fail to be disastrous to all concerned. Even with his boat at our walls the loss of life (as I think I mentioned to Mr. Fox) in unloading her will more than pay for the good to be accomplished by the expedition, which keeps us, if I can maintain possession of this work, out of position, surrounded by strong works, which must be carried to make this fort of the least value to the United States Government.
We have not oil enough to keep a light in the lantern for one night. The boats will have, therefore, to rely at night entirely upon other marks. I ought to have been informed that this expedition was to come. Colonel Lamon's remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out. We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced. That God will still avert it, and cause us to resort to pacific measures to maintain our rights, is my ardent prayer.
I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.
I have posted those Anderson letters to BroJoeK and others before in the following linked post: Link to previous post 1,042.
Drat! My “Fort Pickens” should have been “Fort Sumter.”
O.R. Army, Series I, Vol I., Operations in Charleston Harbor, S.C., Chap. 1; CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.—CONFEDERATE
The Anderson correspondence is on page 294, as enclosures to an April 9, 1861 letter of South Carolina Governor F.W. Pickens to Confederate Secretary of War Walker which begins on page 292.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.