[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Historical See other Historical Articles Title: Lincoln Starts a War Source: nolu chan/Official Records of the War of the Rebellion URL Source: [None] Published: Nov 23, 2016 Author: nolu chan Post Date: 2016-11-23 15:24:59 by nolu chan Keywords: None Views: 27133 Comments: 69 Lincoln Starts a War by nolu chan October 9, 2009 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 lied his ass off. 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. There is an interesting sequence of events. 3/04/1861 -- Lincoln inaugurated. 3/12/1861 -- Orders signed for Army Capt. Vogdes to reinforce and hold Fort Pickens. Capt. Vogdes is aboard ship off Pensacola. Delivery of these orders is delayed until March 31 to Capt. Vogdes, who in turn delivers them to Navy Capt. Adams on April 1. 3/28/1861 -- The Senate adjourned. 3/29/1861 -- Lincoln issues directive: "I desire that an expedition, to move to sea be got ready to sail as early as the 6th of April next, the whole according to memorandum attached..." The memo called for 300 seamen with one month's stores, and 200 soldiers with one year's stores. 3/31/1861 -- Orders issued 3/12/1861 are delivered to Capt. Vogdes. Delivery took either three weeks from the date of issuance or three days from the date of adjournment of the Senate. 4/01/1861 -- Orders issued to Capt. Vogdes are shown to Navy Capt. Adams. Capt. Adams refuses to assist Capt. Vogdes and informs SECNAV Welles of the orders. 4/01/1861 -- Orders issued by Winfield Scott, countersigned by Abraham Lincoln, to Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown to reinforce and hold Fort Pickens. 4/01/1861 -- Orders issued by Abraham Lincoln to Lt. D.D. Porter to assume command of any steamer available. 4/01/1861 -- Orders issued by Abraham Lincoln to Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard to "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." 4/05/1861 -- SECNAV Welles, still unaware of the Lincoln intrigue, issues orders to Navy Capt. Mercer, "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 orders to join you there, at the time mentioned, and also the Harriet Lane, etc. 4/11/1861 -- "April 11th at 9 P. M. the Brooklyn got under way and stood in toward the harbor; and during the night landed troops and marines on board, to reinforce Fort Pickens." Log of U.S.S. Supply, night of April 11, 1861. (O.R. Navy, Ser 1, Vol. 4, p. 210) [1] 4/12/1861 -- Fort Sumter fired upon. 4/17/1861 -- Lt. Porter arrived in Florida with Powhatan. SOURCES: Courtesy of Cornell University Library, Making of America Digital Collection. [1] Title: Official records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion; Series I - Volume 4: Operations in the Gulf of Mexico (November 15, 1860 - June 7, 1861); Operations on the Atlantic Coast (January 1, 1861 - May 13, 1861); Operations on the Potamac and Rappahannock Rivers (January 5, 1861 - December 7, 1861) Author: United States. Naval War Records Office Collection: Books: Civil War Official Histories [2] Title: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies; Series 1 - Volume 1 Author: United States. War Dept., John Sheldon Moody, Calvin Duvall Cowles, Frederick Caryton Ainsworth, Robert N. Scott, Henry Martyn Lazelle, George Breckenridge Davis, Leslie J. Perry, Joseph William Kirkley Collection: Books: Civil War Official Histories [3] A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875 Senate Journal BREAKING THE ARMISTICE -- MARCH 12, 1861 One Month Before Events at Fort Sumter Official Records, Army, Series 1, Vol 1, Chap. 4, p. 360 [2] 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. 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 issued by General Scott, asserting it would violate a binding agreement and "would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war." THE SENATE ADJOURNED March 28, 1861 SENATE JOURNAL, March 25, 1861 [3] 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. THE NEXT DAY LINCOLN GOT BUSY INITIATING WAR. 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. Official Records, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 227 Order from the President of the United States to the Secretary of the Navy, regarding cooperation with the War Department for active service. EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 29, 1861. Sir: I 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 cooperate with the Secretary of War for that object. Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. Hon. SECRETARY NAVY. 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. Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 107-8 April 1, 1861 by General Scott April 2, 1861 approved by Abraham Lincoln To: Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown, U.S. Army You 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 Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 232 Letter from Secretary of War to G. V. Fox, esq., assigning him to command expedition for the relief of Fort Sumter. WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, April 4, 1861. Sir: It having been determined to succor Fort Sumter, you have been selected for this important duty. Accordingly, you will take charge of the transports provided in New York, having the troops and supplies on board, to the entrance of Charleston Harbor, and endeavor, in the first instance, to deliver the subsistence. If you are opposed in this you are directed to report the fact to the senior naval officer off the harbor, who will be instructed by the Secretary of the Navy to use his entire force to open a passage, when you will, if possible, effect an entrance and place both the troops and supplies in Fort Sumter. I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War Captain G. V. Fox, Washington, D. C. Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 232-3 Instructions from Lieutenant-General Scott, U. S. Army, to Lieutenant-Colonel Scott, U. S. Army, regarding expedition for reenforcement of Fort Sumter. Confidential. HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, Washington, D. C., April 4, 1861. Sir: This letter will be handed to you by Captain G. V. Fox, ex-officer of the Navy, and a gentleman of high standing, as well as possessed of extraordinary nautical ability. He is charged by high authority here with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is to reenforce 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 a competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence. A large surplus of the latterindeed, as great as the vessels of the expedition will take with other necessaries, will be needed for the augmented garrison of Fort Sumter. The subsistence and other supplies should be assorted like those which were provided by you and Captain Ward, of the Navy, for a former expedition. Consult Captain Fox and Major Eaton on the subject, and give all necessary orders in my name to fit out the expedition, except that the hiring of vessels will be left to others. Some fuel must be shipped. Oil, artillery, implements, fuses, cordage, slow matches, mechanical levers, and guns, etc., should also be put on board. Consult also, if necessary (confidentially), Colonel Tompkins and Major Thornton. Respectfully, yours, WINFIELD SCOTT. Lieutenant-Colonel H. L. SCOTT, Aid-de-Camp, etc. Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 110 April 1, 1861 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. Capt Adams report (Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 109-10) [1] 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. Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 110-11 The Secretary of the Navy issued a CLASSIFIED response to Capt. Adams: April 6, 1861 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 April 11, 1861 - USS Supply -- Ships Log (Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 210) "April 11th at 9 P.M. the Brooklyn got under way and stood in toward the harbor; and during the night landed troops and marines on board, to reinforce Fort Pickens." Lincoln relieved Captain Mercer of command of the USS Powhatan. This was coordinated with Secretary of State Seward. Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles was not informed. Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 109 Order of the President of the United States to Captain Mereer, U. S. Navy, detaching him from the command of U S. S. Powhatan. WASHINGTON CITY, April 1, 1861. Sir: Circumstances render it necessary to place in command of your ship, and for a special purpose, an officer who is duly informed and instructed in relation to the wishes of the Government, and you will therefore consider yourself detached; but in taking this step the Government does not intend in the least to reflect upon your efficiency or patriotism; on the contrary, have the fullest confidence in your ability to perform any duty required of you. Hoping soon to be able to give you a better command than the one you now enjoy, and trusting that you will have full confidence in the disposition of the Government toward you, I remain, ABRAHAM LINCOLN Captain SAMUEL MERCER, U. S. Navy. Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 108 April 1, 1861 To: Lt. D.D. Porter, USN You 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 Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 108 April 1, 1861 Telegram To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard Fit out Powhatan to go to sea at the earliest possible moment, under sealed orders. Orders by confidential messenger go forward tomorrow. Signed: Abraham Lincoln Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 109 April 1, 1861 To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard You 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 April 5, 1861 - Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles sends orders to Captain Mercer of the USS Powhatan, not knowing about the secret orders of Seward/Lincoln. Lincoln relieved Captain Mercer four days before, on April Fool's Day. Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 235 Confidential instructions from the Secretary of the Navy to Captain Mercer, U. S. Navy, commanding U. S. S. Powhatan, regarding expedition to Fort Sumter. Confidential.] NAVY DEPARTMENT, April 5, 1861. Sir: The 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 objects of an expedition of which the War Department has charge. The primary object of the expedition is to provision Fort Sumter, for which purpose the War Department will furnish the necessary transports. Should the authorities at Charleston permit the fort to be supplied, no further particular service will be required of the force under your command, and after being satisfied that supplies have been received at the fort the Powhatan, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane will return to New York and the Pawnee to Washington. Should the authorities at Charleston, however, refuse to permit or attempt to prevent the vessel or vessels having supplies on board from entering the harbor or from peaceably proceeding to Fort Sumter, you will protect the transports or boats of the expedition in the object of their mission, disposing of your force in such manner as to open the way for their ingress, and afford, so far as practicable, security to the men and boats, and repelling by force, if necessary, all obstructions toward provisioning the fort and reenforcing it; for in case of resistance to the peaceable primary object of the expedition a reenforcement of the garrison will also be attempted. These purposes will be under the supervision of the War Department, which has charge of the expedition. The expedition has been intrusted to Captain G. V. Fox, with whom you will put yourself in communication, and cooperate with him to accomplish and carry into effect its object. 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 transport or 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, which latter vessel has been placed under the control of this Department for this service. On the termination of the expedition, whether it be peaceable or otherwise, the several vessels under your command will return to the respective ports, as above directed, unless some unforeseen circumstances should prevent. I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, GIDEON WELLES, Secretary Navy. Captain SAMUEL MERCER, Commanding U. S. S. Powhatan, New York. April 6, 1861 - Lt. Porter took the Powhatan and sailed, pursuant to secret orders of Seward/Lincoln. Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles found out and had a fit. The Powhatan was the flagship for the Navy operation going to Fort Sumter. Seward/Lincoln took the flagship, and the troops intended to reinforce Fort Sumter, and sent them off on an Atlantic cruise, eventually showing up near Pensacola, Florida. Seward sent a telegram to Porter: Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 112 "Give the Powhatan up to Captain Mercer. Seward." A dispatch boat caught up with Powhatan and delivered Seward's message. Lt. Porter responded to Seward: Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 112 "I received my orders from the President, and shall proceed and execute them." Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 112 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. When the Powhatan, sort of detached from the Navy and under the State Department, arrived off Florida, it was stopped dead in its tracks by the U.S. Navy which stood in her way and refused to permit her to proceed. Lt. Porter filed this report, April 21, 1861: Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 122 Report of Lieutenant Porter, U. S. Navy, commanding U. S. S. Powhatan, of the arrival of that vessel off Pensacola, and giving reasons for not having entered that harbor. U.S.S. Powhatan, Off Pensacola Bar, April 21, 1861. Sir: I enclose a correspondence which will explain why I am not inside of the harbor. Will you please to lay it before the President? I arrived here a few hours behind the Atlantic, my passage having been retarded by heavy gales, head winds, and defective boilers. I had disguised the ship so that she deceived those who had known her, and after nearing our squadron was standing in (unnoticed) when the steam gunboat Wyandotte, lying alongside the Atlantic, commenced making signals to me, which I did not answer, but stood on. The steamer then put herself in my way, and Captain Meigs, who was on board, hailed me and I stopped. In twenty minutes more I should have been inside or sunk. Captain Meigs delivered me Colonel Browns letter dated April 17, 1861, which will explain why I was not permitted to proceed. ... Official Records, Army, Series 1, Vol 1, Chap 4, page 368-70 [2] APRIL 3, 1861. 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. MEIGS, Captain of Engineers. Official Records, Army, Series 1, Vol. 1, page 368 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. See also the ship's log of the USS Supply. The link goes to the official records. 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. USS SUPPLY -- SHIPS LOG - APRIL 11, 1861 (Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 210 [1] April 7. -- Came to anchor in the harbor of Pensacola. 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. Official Records, Army, Series 1, Vol. 1, page 191 [2] CHAP. I.] CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.—UNION. 191 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 today. 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. Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 90 Order from Lieutenant-General Scott, U. S. Army, to Captain Vodges, U. S. Army, to reenforce Fort Pickens. HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, Washington, March 12, 1861. SIR: At the first favorable moment you will land with your company, reenforce 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.B. TOWNSEND, Assistant Adjutant-General. Captain I. VOGDES, First Artillery, U. S. A., on board Sloop of War Brooklyn, Off Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Fla. Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 107-8 [1] 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’s Company 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 officers 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. You 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, I 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. Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 109-110 [1] Report of Captain Adams, U. S. Navy, senior officer present off Pensacola, transmitting communication from Captain Vogdes, U. S. Army, regarding cooperation for the protection of Fort Pickens. U.S. FRIGATE SABINE, Off Pensacola, April 1, 1861. SIR: I have the honor to inclose a copy of a letter addressed to me by Captain Vogdes, U. S. Army, who is here in command of some 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, JJ. C. - - - [Enclosure.] U. S. FRIGATE SABINE, Off Pensacola, Fla., April 1, 1861. SIR: 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. Yours, etc., I. VOGDES Captain, First Artillery, Commanding. Captain H. A. ADAMS, Commanding Naval Forces off Pensacola. Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Volume 4, page 117 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 Pickens. Captain H. A. ADAMS, Commanding Naval Forces off Pensacola. Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Volume 4, page 117 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. - - - - - Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 36. #1. To: civilwarbuff (#0) Some civil war history straight from the official records. nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-23   15:26:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: nolu chan (#1) Gotta break some eggs to make an omelette. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-23   15:33:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: Vicomte13 (#2) Gotta break some eggs to make an omelette. Or just make a mess. nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-23   16:29:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: nolu chan (#3) Or just make a mess. Results were great, at the end of it all. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-23   18:49:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: Vicomte13 (#5) Results were great, at the end of it all. If you enjoy dead and maimed people. nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-23   19:40:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: nolu chan (#7) (Edited) f you enjoy dead and maimed people. I don't, but that was the price of secession to protect a slave culture. Slavery killed and maimed generation after generation. That the slaveholders got killed and maimed is justice. That the country that permitted it was horribly traumatized is justice. That the wealth built up through slave agriculture was destroyed is justice. And killing all those folks served another purpose: it reduced the voting bloc that would stand against the reforms that came afterwards. Without a civil war to wipe out about a half-million pro- slavery voting males, it would have been much harder to amend the Constitution to abolish slavery and grant citizenship to the slaves. The pro-slavery population would have been as numerous as the Jim Crow advocates were, and as tenacious, and the anti- slavery forces would have made all sorts of corrupt bargains with them, and avoided a fight - which would have left millions in chains longer. Of course a society that holds millions in chains deserves to be destroyed with hideous slaughter. The Germans deserved to be firebombed. The Japanese deserved to be nuked. And the Southern slavers deserved to be burnt out and blown to pieces on the battlefield. Get rid of hundreds of thousands of them and it's a lot easier to quickly change the polity that remains. The result of the Civil War was spectacularly good, far, far better than anything that Lincoln would have himself dreamed of at the start. Precisely BECAUSE the South fought so hard and so well, the opportunity was had to utterly destroy the whole slave culture and wreck the entire economy, and kill huge numbers of pro-slavery men, removing them from the voting rolls and making it easier to change everything afterwards. The Germans learned the wrong message from the Franco-Prussian war, and didn't learn from World War I. Militarism - the hope of conquest - had to be beaten out of them with millions and millions dead, the wholesale destruction of their homes and monuments, and the tread of foreign troops in occupation over them, forcing them to their knees, forcing them to carry bodies out of concentration camps and bury them - humiliating them and grinding their arrogant faces in the dirt. Only then could the FULL trauma of war be visited upon them and all fight permanently beaten out of that people. It worked. Germany, and Japan are the most pacifist countries in the world. Likewise in America, the very success of Southern arms for the first two and a half years of war was necessary to set the stage for the wholesale destruction of the South in a fight to death, and only that wholesale destruction and the anger and vengeance that came from it could enrage the North enough to utterly strip the rebels of the vote and citizen rights, give the blacks the vote, and change the whole structure of the country forever. Without First and Second Bull Run, Chancellorsville, the Peninsula, and victory after victory, the final devastating assault would never have been so complete, and the eradication of slavery so quick, so absolute, and so pitiless on the "properly rights" of the slavers. The dead and the maimed in that war had it coming. There was no other way that was as good or as complete. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-23   20:17:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: Vicomte13 (#9) If you enjoy dead and maimed people. I don't... Yeah, I see what mean: Of course a society that holds millions in chains deserves to be destroyed with hideous slaughter. The Germans deserved to be firebombed. The Japanese deserved to be nuked. And the Southern slavers deserved to be burnt out and blown to pieces on the battlefield. ... The Germans learned the wrong message from the Franco-Prussian war, and didn't learn from World War I. Militarism - the hope of conquest - had to be beaten out of them with millions and millions dead, the wholesale destruction of their homes and monuments, and the tread of foreign troops in occupation over them, forcing them to their knees, ... Likewise in America, the very success of Southern arms for the first two and a half years of war was necessary to set the stage for the wholesale destruction of the South in a fight to death, and only that wholesale destruction and the anger and vengeance that came from it could enrage the North enough to utterly strip the rebels of the vote and citizen rights, give the blacks the vote, and change the whole structure of the country forever. You sound like you constantly have a refrain from Alice's Restaurant Massacree running through your mind: We walked in, sat down, Obie came in with the twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, sat down. Man came in said, "All rise." We all stood up, and Obie stood up with the twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures, and the judge walked in sat down with a seeing eye dog, and he sat down, we sat down. Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, and looked at the seeing eye dog. And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry, 'cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case of American blind justice, and there wasn't nothing he could do about it, and the judge wasn't going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us. And we was fined fifty dollars and had to pick up the garbage in the snow, but that's not what I came to tell you about. Came to talk about the draft. They got a building down in New York City, it's called Whitehall Street, where you walk in, you get injected, inspected, detected, infected, neglected and selected. I went down to get my physical examination one day, and I walked in, I sat down, got good and drunk the night before, so I looked and felt my best when I went in that morning. 'Cause I wanted to look like the all-American kid from New York City, man I wanted, I wanted to feel like the all-, I wanted to be the all American kid from New York, and I walked in, sat down, I was hung down, brung down, hung up, and all kinds o' mean nasty ugly things. And I walked in and sat down and they gave me a piece of paper, said, "Kid, see the psychiatrist, room 604." And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, kill, kill, kill." And I started jumpin' up and down yelling, "Kill! Kill!" and he started jumpin' up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down yelling, "Kill! Kill!" And the Sargent came over, pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy." All in the cause of a good, and moral, and utmost Christian reason, of course. - - - - - - - - - - but that was the price of secession to protect a slave culture. Actually, slavery was constitutional, and every single state of the Union agreed to it when they signed up of their own free will. They did not have to sign up, and they could have left. The dead and the maimed in that war had it coming. Well, you said it again. I will remind you again that most of the dead and maimed were Union casualties. As Yogi Berra would say, you can look it up. If you say they had it coming, who am I to argue? nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-23   23:19:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: nolu chan (#11) Actually, slavery was constitutional, and every single state of the Union agreed to it when they signed up of their own free will. They did not have to sign up, and they could have left. Which is why the United States deserved about a million deaths, total, on BOTH sides. The North had the burden of the attack, in an era when defensive weapons had the advantage, so they suffered more combat casualties. But the North had more numbers, so as a proportion of the male population, the Southern military deaths were a greater percentage of the population of the Confederacy than the Northern losses were of the North. Southern civilian deaths, from disease and starvation, were much higher because of the destruction of the Southern economy and cities and property, There was none of that in the North. The North had indeed connived at slavery, as you pointed out. So it was also due to pay the price in blood also. Because America built slavery into its Constitution, it was an evil country that had to be destroyed. The Constitution failed and the country came apart. The issue of slavery was resolved by breaking the Constitution and stripping the conquered pro-slavery side of the vote until the Constitution was changed, after the fact, to contain the new reality, imposed by force. Because the Constitution was wrong and the country was evil, might had to make right. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. He hath trampled out the vintage where the grapes of wrath were stored. He hath loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword. His Truth is marching on. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-24   10:18:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: Vicomte13 (#12) Which is why the United States deserved about a million deaths, total, on BOTH sides. Yes, they all had it coming. The dead and the maimed in that war had it coming. The poor Irish immigrants who got off the boat with no money and took a bonus to sign up with one side or the other, they had it coming. The only ones who did not have it coming were those with the means to hire a substitute and avoid the draft. Like Robert Lincoln. Because America built slavery into its Constitution, it was an evil country that had to be destroyed. Well, at least we have progressed to the point of admitting that the holy mission of Lincoln and the Radicals was to destroy the country, not save the Union as it existed pursuant to the agreed upon Constitution. nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-25   1:29:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: nolu chan (#13) Americans agreed in the Constitution to protect and preserve slavery. Americans had no right, under God, to HAVE slavery. One cannot "agree" as a people to do evil without consequences. The country was evil, the Constitution was evil, and a sixth of the population was held in chains, from generation to generation on account of it. THAT country had to be destroyed, THAT Constitution, torn apart. Ending slavery was more important then preserving the peace, wealth or rule of law of the nation. It was more important than preserving the lives of the rest of the Americans, who were content to let a sixth of their number be in chains. I don't care about Lincoln's MOTIVES. He too was a pawn, or perhaps a bishop, on a chessboard where good and evil, God and Satan, battled it out. The American Constitution and political system stood on the side of Satan, and the people who supported it, and who believed that slavery was just a political issue, and ultimately nobody's business, were pawns of Satan. Because they would not let go of their belief in their slavery system, they were active agents of evil, and they all deserved to die as the penalty for that. America as it existed WAS destroyed, forever, thank God! The Constitution was shredded and had to be rewritten to completely extirpate the notion that men could own men, and that states had any say at all in that matter. Human liberty is more important than the rule of law, when the law is evil. and far more important than the dignity of any constitution. The Irish immigrants chose to come here, to a nation at war. They could have gone to Canada. They could have gone to Argentina. They could have tried to make the best of it in Ireland. They CHOSE to come here. And then, on arrival, some CHOSE to be hired to go off to war and kill. Soldiers die. They signed up to die. Did they know what they were fighting for? Were they fighting for a "cause" (both sides had Irish soldiers) or were they fighting for money, mercenaries. They didn't HAVE to fight, they CHOSE to fight. When you choose to pick up a gun and march out to kill other men for hire, you expose yourself to death and crippling. It was their choice. They were not rounded up and drafted. The Union that existed under the agreed Constitution was evil and not worth preserving. It's too bad the slavers were so evil that they refused to let go of the evil and chose instead to bring justice down upon their head and their people. It's too bad the Northerners were weak and vacillating and did not care about slavery, as opposed to strongly saying: the time of slavery is over, end it or we will march down there and burn you out to end it. It's too bad that those things were not the motivations of war, but that instead the country sleepwalked into a war over slavery, pretending that it was about petty political things, and refusing the admit what it really WAS about until the issue was so deeply engaged that there was no way out. It would have been nice to have been able to end the old evil and revise the country peacefully, without war. But the people who derived an advantage from enslaving other people were too hellbent on the practice to allow that - and indeed had worked slavery into the very legal fabric of the nation. And the people on the other side were, for the most part, just not willing to fight to end the enslavement of others. So the country rotted at the head, divided, and fought a bitter war. The country didn't survive it intact. The Constitution didn't. The nature of the people didn't. Everything changed. That was what it took to rip the threads of slavery out of the legal and social fabric. It would have been better - less hard on life and property - to have done that peacefully. But it was more important that it be done than that the country should survive as it was, or the Constitution be respected, or those Americans who were not slaves be allowed to continue to live their lives in peace and security. In the end, it was better to kill a million whites and destroy the country than to leave slavery be. It happened the way it had to. I would hope that the lesson to be drawn is that the Constitution is NOT the ultimate law. There is a law of good and evil above that, and that if good is not respected and evil is embedded because of the Constitution itself, that the Constitution has to go down. This is not an incentive to revolution, but rather, an incentive for people to not accept evil in the belief that the Constitution will be able to simply allow the evil to be unchecked and unchallenged - the belief that as long as you get your evil enacted into law, you're good to go and there's nothing anybody can do about it. The rule of law cannot itself hold when the law is devoted to evil. That's the lesson of the Civil War. America got what it deserved. We should accept that, sorrowfully, and see to it that we don't make the same mistake again. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-25   7:41:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: Vicomte13 (#14) The country was evil, the Constitution was evil, and a sixth of the population was held in chains, from generation to generation on account of it. THAT country had to be destroyed, THAT Constitution, torn apart. Oh, we are a country of New England moralism, and whatever those nutbags say relieves them of all duties to the Constitution and takes away all rights of anyone who disagrees, and they exercised their unilateral, God-given right to destroy the country. Got it. The great moralism did not stop Providence from being headquarters for the slave trade. There was money to be made. Indeed there was moral outrage. Just ask Prudence Crandall, see below. The Constitution was shredded and had to be rewritten to completely extirpate the notion that men could own men, and that states had any say at all in that matter. As I recall, three Amendments were added, and the 14th Amendment was unable to get the support of 3/4ths of the Union states, so the Southern representatives were expelled from Congress and the Southern states were coerced to ratify the amendment that the Union states would not, as a condition of re-entry into Congress. There is nothing like those good old New England values at work, bringing democracy to the land. The should have just stuck to burning witches at the stake. I would hope that the lesson to be drawn is that the Constitution is NOT the ultimate law. It is on planet Earth in the United States. Should we destroy the country, say nuke all the cities, to rid of abortion? It's too bad the Northerners were weak and vacillating and did not care about slavery, as opposed to strongly saying: the time of slavery is over, end it or we will march down there and burn you out to end it. Oh, not to worry. Northerners were strong and did not let a little old Supreme Court opinion stop them when they were riled to action. "In the Northern states, we are not slaves to individuals, not personal slaves, yet in many respects we are the slaves of the community." -- Frederick Douglass, 1848 Aimed against an attempt to educate Black children in Connecticut, a law was enacted to shut down the school of Prudence Crandall. "Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened, That no person shall set up or establish in this state any school, academy, or literary institution, for the instruction or education of coloured persons, who are not inhabitants of this state, nor instruct or teach in any school, academy, or other literary institution whatever in this state, or harbour or board, for the purpose of attending or being taught or instructed in any such school, academy, or literary institution, any coloured person who is not an inhabitant of any town in this state, without the consent in writing, first obtained of a majority of the civil authority, and also of the select-men of the town in which such school, academy, or literary institution is situated; and each and every person who shall knowingly do any act forbidden as aforesaid, or shall be aiding or assisting therein, shall, for the first offence, forfeit and pay to the treasurer of this state, a fine of one hundred dollars, and for the second offence, shall forfeit and pay a fine of two hundred dollars, and so double for every offence of which he or she shall be convicted. And all informing officers are required to make due presentment of all breaches of this act. Provided, That nothing in this act shall extend to any district school established in any school society under the laws of this state, or to any school established by any school society under the laws of this state, or to any incorporated academy or incorporated school for instruction in this state." In the case of State of Connecticut v. Crandall, at Brooklyn, October term, 1833, before David Daggett, Ch. J., the court instructed the jury as follows: "This is an information filed by the attorney for the state, for an alleged violation of a statute law, passed by the General Assembly, at their last session, relating to inhabitants; the preamble to the act, embracing the reasons for the law. "It is alleged in this information, that since the 22d day of August last, to wit, on the 24th day of September, 1833, the defendant has, wilfully and knowingly, harboured and boarded coloured persons not inhabitants of the state, for the purposes mentioned in said act, without having obtained in writing, the consent of the civil authority and the selectment of Canterbury where the school had been set up. As to the facts in this case, there seems to be but little controversy. It has scarcely been denied, that coloured persons have been harboured and boarded, by the defendant, for the objects alleged, within the time set forth in this information. You, gentlemen of the jury, have heard the evidence, and as it is your exclusive business to pass upon these facts, you will say whether or not they are true. "If these facts are not proved to your satisfaction, then you may dismiss the cause; for in that event, you have no further duty to perform. If, however, you find the facts true, then another duty equally important, devolves upon the jury. It is an undeniable proposition, that the jury are judges of both law and fact, in all cases of this nature. It is, however, equally true, that the court is to state its opinion to the jury, upon all questions of law, arising in the trial of a criminal cause, and to submit to their consideration, both law and fact, without any direction how to find their verdict. "The counsel for the defendant, have rested her defence upon a provision of the constitution of the United States, claiming that the statute law of this state, upon which this information is founded, is inconsistent with that provision, and, therefore, void. This is the great question involved in this case: and it is about to be submitted to your consideration. "It is admitted, that there are no provisions in the constitution of this state, which conflict with this act. It may be remarked here, that the constitution of the United States, is above all other law, -- it is emphatically the supreme law of the land, and the judges are so to declare it. From the highest court to the lowest, even that of a justice of the peace, all laws, whether made by Congress or state legislatures, are subject to examination, and when brought to the test of the constitution, may be declared utterly void. But in order to do this, the court should first find the law contrary, and plainly contrary, to the constitution. Although this may be done, and done too, by the humblest court, yet it never should be done but upon a full conviction that the law in question is unconstitutional. "Many things said upon this trial, may be laid out of the case. The consideration of slavery, with all its evils and degrading consequences, may be dismissed with the consideration that it is a degrading evil. The benefits, blessings and advantages of instruction and education, may also cease to claim your attention, except you may well consider that education is a 'fundamental privilege,' for this is the basis of all free government. "Having read this law, the question comes to us with peculiar force, does it clearly violate the constitution of the United States? The section claimed to have been violated, reads as follows, to wit: Art. 4. sec. 2. 'The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.' It has been urged, that this section was made to direct, exclusively, the action of the general government, and therefore, can never be applied to state laws. This is not the opinion of the court. The plain and obvious meaning of this provision, is to secure to the citizens of all the states, the same privileges as are secured to our own, by our own state laws. Should a citizen of Connecticut purchase a farm in Massachusetts, and the legislature of Massachusetts tax the owner of that farm, four times as much as they would tax a citizen of Massachusetts, because the one resided in Connecticut and the other in Massachusetts; or should a law be passed, by either of those states, that no citizen of the other, should reside or trade in that other, this would, undoubtedly, be an unconstitutional law, and should be so declared. "The second section was provided as a substitute for the 4th article of the Confederation. That article has also been read, and by comparing them, you can perceive the object intended by the substitute. "The act in question provides, that coloured persons, who are not inhabitants of this State, shall not be harboured and boarded for the purposes therein mentioned, within this state, without the consent of the civil authority and select-men of the town. We are, then, brought to the great question, are they citizens within the provisions of this section of the constitution? The law extends to all persons of colour not inhabitants of this state, whether they live in the state of New-York, or in the West-Indies, or in any other foreign country. "In deciding this question, I am happy that my opinion can be revised, by the supreme court of this state and of the United States, should you return a verdict against the defendant. "The persons contemplated in this act are not citizens within the obvious meaning of that section of the constitution of the United States, which I have just read. Let me begin, by putting this plain question. Are Slaves citizens? At the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state was a slave state. Massachusetts had begun the work of emancipation within her own borders. And Connecticut, as early as 1784, had also enacted laws making all those free at the age of 25, who might be born within the State, after that time. We all know, that slavery is recognized in that constitution; and it is the duty of this court to take that constitution as it is, for we have sworn to support it. Although the term 'slavery' cannot be found written out in the constitution, yet no one can mistake the object of the 3d section of the 4th article: 'No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered, upon claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.' "The 2d section of the 1st article, reads as follows: -- 'Representatives and direct taxes, shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included in this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.' The 'other persons' are slaves, and they became the basis of representation, by adding them to the white population in that proportion. Then slaves were not considered citizens by the framers of the constitution. "A citizen means a freeman. By referring to Dr. Webster, one of the most learned men of this or any other country, we have the following definition of the term -- 'Citizen: 1. A native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides. 2. A townsman, a man of trade, not a gentleman. 3. An inhabitant; a dweller in any city, town or country. 4. In the United States, it means a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, and of purchasing and holding real estate.' "Are Indians citizens? It is admitted in the argument, that they are not; but it is said, they belong to distinct tribes. This cannot be true; because all Indians do not belong to a tribe. It may be now added, that by the declared law of New-York, Indians are not citizens; and the learned Chancellor Kent, says 'they never can be made citizens.' Indians were literally natives of our soil; they were born here; and yet they are not citizens. "The Mohegans were once a mighty tribe, powerful and valiant; and who among us ever saw one of them performing military duty, or exercising, with the white men, the privilege of the elective franchise, or holding an office? And what is the reason? I answer, they are not citizens, according to the acceptation of the term in the United States. "Are free blacks citizens? It has been ingeniously said, that vessels may be owned and navigated, by free blacks, and the American flag will protect them; but you will remember, that the statute which makes that provision, is an act of Congress, and not the constitution. Admit, if you please, that Mr. Cuffee, a respectable merchant, has owned vessels, and sailed them under the American flag; yet this does not prove him to be such citizen as the constitution contemplates. But that question stands undecided, by any legal tribunal within my knowledge. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to determine that question. "It has been also urged, that as coloured persons may commit treason, they must be considered citizens. Every person born in the United States, as well as every person who may reside here, owes allegiance, of some sort, to the government, because the government affords him protection. Treason against this government, consists in levying war against the government of the United States, or aiding its enemy in time of war. Treason may be committed, by persons who are not entitled to the elective franchise. For if they reside under the protection of the government, it would be treason to levy war against that government, as much as if they were citizens. "I think Chancellor Kent, whose authority it gives me pleasure to quote, determines this question, by fair implication. Had this authority considered free blacks citizens, he had an ample opportunity to say so. But what he has said excludes that idea: In most of the United States, there is a distinction in respect to political privileges, between free white persons and free coloured persons of African blood; and in no part of the country do the latter, in point of fact, participate equally with the whites, in the exercise of civil and political rights. The African race are essentially a degraded caste, of inferior rank and condition in society. Marriages are forbidden between them and whites, in some of the states, and when not absolutely contrary to law, they are revolting, and regarded as an offence against public decorum. By the revised statutes of Illinois, published in 1829, marriages between whites and negroes, or mulattos, are declared void, and the persons so married are liable to be whipped, fined and imprisoned. By an old statute of Massachusetts, of 1705, such marriages were declared void, and are so still. A similar statute provision exists in Virginia and North-Carolina. Such connexions in France and Germany, constitute the degraded state of concubinage, which is known in the civil law. But they are not legal marriages, because the parties want that equality of state or condition, which is essential to the contract.' 2 Kent's Comm. 258. "I go further back still. When the constitution of the United States was adopted, every state, (Massachusetts excepted,) tolerated slavery. And in some of the states, down to a late period, severe laws have been kept in force regarding slaves. With respect to New-York, at that time, her laws and penalties were severe indeed; and it was not until July, 4th, 1827, that this great state was ranked among the free states. "To my mind, it would be a perversion of terms, and the well known rule of construction, to say, that slaves, free blacks, or Indians, were citizens, within the meaning of that term, as used in the constitution. God forbid that I should add to the degradation of this race of men; but I am bound, by my duty, to say, they are not citizens. "I have thus shown you that this law is not contrary to the 2d section of the 4th art. of the constitution of the United States; for that embraces only citizens. http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/crandall/CRfacts1.htm On July 26, 1834, the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors dismissed the case against Crandall on a technical issue. The lower court decision that African Americans were not protected as citizens, however, remained standing. Although Crandall had won a technical legal victory and was free to return to her school, the townspeople of Canterbury would not accept the Supreme Court's decision. On the night of September 9, 1834, an angry mob broke in and ransacked the school building. With clubs and iron bars, the mob terrorized the students and broke more than 90 windows. What the Black Law and local ostracism had not been able to accomplish, this mob achieved. Fearing for the girls' safety, Crandall closed the school the following morning. http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/educator-and-abolitionist-prudence-crandall From Rhode Island, after being educated at a Society of Friends school in Plainfield, Connecticut, Crandall established her own private school for girls at Canterbury. The school was a great success until she decided to admit a Black girl. Crandall, a committed Quaker refused to change her policy of educating Black and white children. The result, White parents began taking their children away from the school. In March 1833 with the support of William Lloyd Garrison and the Anti-Slavery Society, Crandall opened a school for Black girls in Canterbury. Local people were furious at this and many tried to prevent the school from receiving essential materials. The school persisted and began to attract girls from Boston and Philadelphia. The local authorities then began using a vagrancy law that meant the girls could be given ten lashes for attending the school. In 1834 Connecticut passed a law making it illegal to provide a free education for Black students. Crandall refused to obey the law and was imprisoned, but won the case on appeal. When news of the court decision reached Canterbury, a white mob attacked the school forcing Crandall to close her school down. nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-25   17:30:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: nolu chan (#19) As I recall, three Amendments were added, and the 14th Amendment was unable to get the support of 3/4ths of the Union states, so the Southern representatives were expelled from Congress and the Southern states were coerced to ratify the amendment that the Union states would not, as a condition of re-entry into Congress. We've talked about this before. Long story short you said the 14th is lawful, and that my position that it wasn't ratified correctly was horse shit. :) Granted it was a different argument as to why it wasn't legitimate that I was making. A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-26   23:40:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 36. #42. To: A K A Stone (#36) As I recall, three Amendments were added, and the 14th Amendment was unable to get the support of 3/4ths of the Union states, so the Southern representatives were expelled from Congress and the Southern states were coerced to ratify the amendment that the Union states would not, as a condition of re-entry into Congress. We've talked about this before. Long story short you said the 14th is lawful, and that my position that it wasn't ratified correctly was horse shit. :) I do not recall the precise conversation, but I think there is a misunderstanding of the legal effect of something I may have said. No amendment, certified as ratified, can be judicially challenged or held to be unlawful. I have frequently assailed the method by which ratifications were obtained for the 14th Amendment. That does not make the amendment unlawful. The certification of ratification by the Secretary is absolutely conclusive and is not subject to challenge in any court. As a political question, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. No matter what evidence of questionable acts or wrongdoing can be found, there is absolutely no recourse. The 14th is part of the Constitution unless repealed. LaVergne v Bryson, Secretary of Commerce, 3rd Cir 12-1171 (20 Sep 2012) LaVergne’s claims also fail on other grounds, including lack of justiciability. LaVergne’s constitutional challenge to § 2a is primarily based on his argument that the apportionment method violates Article the First. He alleges that this proposed constitutional amendment was ratified by the states in November 1791 or June 1792. Putting aside the considerable factual and historical problems with his argument, “[t]he issue of whether a constitutional amendment has been properly ratified is a political question.” United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146, 1990 WL 186103 (table), at *3 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (citing Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 450 (1939)). In Coleman, the Supreme Court held that “the question of the efficacy of ratifications by state legislatures . . . should be regarded as a political question pertaining to the political departments, with the ultimate authority in the Congress in the exercise of its control over the promulgation of the adoption of the amendment.” 307 U.S. at 450. See also Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1, 39 (1849) (holding that “the political department has always determined whether the proposed constitution or amendment was ratified or not by the people of the State, and the judicial power has followed its decision”); United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 463 n.6 (7th Cir. 1986) (holding that the issue of “the validity of an amendment’s ratification [is] a non-justiciable political question” and citing, among other cases, Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922), and Coleman, 307 U.S. at 450). US v McDonald, 9th Cir 88-5239, 919 F.2d 146 (26 Nov 1990) Because the ratification of a constitutional amendment is a political question, the Secretary of State's certification that the required number of states have ratified an amendment is binding on the courts. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922) (Secretary of State's certification that the Nineteenth Amendment had been ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures was conclusive upon the courts); United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1439 (9th Cir. 1986) (Secretary of State's certification that the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified was conclusive upon the courts), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987). In the case of the Fourteenth Amendment, Secretary of State William J. Seward certified that the required number of states ratified the Amendment on July 28, 1868. 15 Stat. 708 (1867-69). In accordance with the authority cited above, we are bound by Secretary Seward's finding. The fact that the appellant is alleging fraud in the ratification process does not alter our conclusion. Stahl, 702 F.2d at 1440. United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1439 (9th Cir. 1986) Stahl argues that the sixteenth amendment was never ratified by the requisite number of states because of clerical errors in the ratifying resolutions of the various state legislatures and other errors in the ratification process. He further argues that Secretary of State Knox committed fraud by certifying the adoption of the amendment despite these alleged errors. Secretary of State Knox certified that the sixteenth amendment had been ratified by the legislatures of thirty-eight states, two more than the thirty-six then required for ratification. His certification of the adoption of the amendment was made pursuant to Section 205 of the Revised Statutes of the United States which provided: Whenever official notice is received at the Department of State that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Secretary of State shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published in the newspapers authorized to promulgate the laws, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States. Act of April 20, 1818, ch. 80, Sec. 2, Rev.Stat. Sec. 205 (2d ed. 1878) (amended version codified at 5 U.S.C. § 160 (1940) (repealed Oct. 31, 1951); current version, as amended, at 1 U.S.C. § 106b (Supp. II 1984)). Secretary of State Knox's certification of the adoption of the sixteenth amendment is conclusive upon the courts. United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253-54 (7th Cir. 1986); see also Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137, 42 S. Ct. 217, 218, 66 L. Ed. 505 (1922). In Leser suit was brought to strike the names of two women from the list of qualified voters in Maryland on the ground that the constitution of Maryland limited suffrage to men. Maryland had refused to ratify the Nineteenth Amendment. The necessary minimum of thirty-six states had ratified the amendment. The Secretary of State of the United States had certified its adoption. It was contended, however, that the ratifying resolutions of Tennessee and West Virginia, two of the states that had ratified the amendment, were inoperative because the resolutions of those states had been adopted in violation of their rules of legislative procedure. In answer to that contention the Court ruled: The proclamation by the Secretary certified that from official documents on file in the Department of State it appeared that the proposed Amendment was ratified by the legislatures of thirty-six States, and that it "has become valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the United States." As the legislatures of Tennessee and of West Virginia had power to adopt the resolutions of ratification, official notice to the Secretary, duly authenticated, that they had done so was conclusive upon him, and, being certified to by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts. Luther v Borden, 48 US 1, 39 (1849) In forming the constitutions of the different States, after the Declaration of Independence, and in the various changes and alterations which have since been made, the political department has always determined whether the proposed constitution or amendment was ratified or not by the people of the State, and the judicial power has followed its decision. nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-27 02:04:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 36. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com