[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: 27145 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 Comments (1-28) not displayed.       .       .       . #29. To: Pinguinite (#24) [Pinguinite #24] Lincoln would have qualified as a white supremist by today's standards, though I'd bet most whites of the day would have also. True, north and south. The evidence for it is overwhelming. But then the standard reason given for the war, supposedly being to free the slaves, posits a war between two groups of white racists to free the slaves, where one side held Blacks enslaved, and the other nearly enslaved them with Black laws. Illinois, the home of the free and the Land o' Lincoln instituted 99-year indentured servitude. Not to be confused with slavery because after 99 years servitude they were free. The history I was taught in school was pure nonsense. It included that the guy who assassinated Lincoln was a lone nut. At no time at school was I ever taught that four people were hanged and four more imprisoned for conspiracy. That was probably the most corrupt trial in history. One more conspiracy trial failed to obtain a conviction. [Pinguinite #24] If he'd put the country through the hell of war to preserve the union, how bad would it have been to just say, "okay, you guys can keep your slaves" and be a happy united country again? Give the owners compensation and let all the freed slaves go to New England where they would be welcomed. /s Compensated emancipation and letting them go to the territories might have been tried. The the D.C. slaves were freed during the war, the owners were compensated. Compensation would have been cheaper than the war and would not have killed anyone. However, Lincoln and the radicals saw the territories as an all-White paradise with no Black labor in sight. Lincoln was not bashful about saying what he wanted: "In our greedy chase to make profit of the Negro, let us beware, lest we 'cancel and tear to pieces' even the white man's charter of freedom" [the Declaration of Independence] Lincoln, October 16, 1854, Peoria, Illinois, CW 2:276 "Thenceforward, for sixty-one years, and until in 1848, the last scrap of this territory came into the Union as the State of Wisconsin, all parties acted in quiet obedience to this ordinance. It is now what Jefferson foresaw and intended---the happy home of teeming millions of free, white, prosperous people, and no slave amongst them." Lincoln, October 16, 1854, Peoria, Illinois, CW 2:249 "Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people." Lincoln, October 16, 1854, Peoria, Illinois, CW 2:268 "Have we no interest in the free Territories of the United States---that they should be kept open for the homes of free white people?" Lincoln, August 27, 1856, Kalamazoo, Michigan, CW 2:363 "Sustain these men and negro equality will be abundant, as every white laborer will have occasion to regret when he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave n------." Lincoln, August 31, 1858, Carlinville, Illinois, CW 3:78 [Lincoln uses the N-word without elision] "Is it not rather our duty [as White men] to make labor more respectable by preventing all black competition, especially in the territories?" Lincoln, August 31, 1858, Carlinville, Illinois, CW 3:79 nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-26   20:00:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: Pinguinite (#24) [Pinguinite #24] Sending them somewhere/anywhere was certainly his desire for at least part of his career. Yes, the last part, up until approximately April 12, 1865. Shortly before that Lincoln met with General Benjamin Butler about what to do with the freed slaves. Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler: A Review of His Legal, Political, and Military Career (or, Butler’s Book) (Boston: A. M. Thayer & Co. Book Publishers, 1892), p. 577-79: In the spring of 1863, I had another conversation with President Lincoln upon the subject of the employment of negroes. The question was, whether all the negro troops then enlisted and organized should be collected together and made a part of the Army of the Potomac and thus reinforce it. We then talked of a favourite project he had of getting rid of the negroes by colonization, and he asked me what I thought of it. I told him that it was simply impossible; that the negroes would not go away, for they loved their homes as much as the rest of us, and all efforts at colonization would not make a substantial impression upon the number of negroes in the country. Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler: A Review of His Legal, Political, and Military Career (or, Butler’s Book) (Boston: A. M. Thayer & Co. Book Publishers, 1892), p. 903: In April 1865, Lincoln to General Butler: But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free? I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes. Certainly they cannot if we don’t get rid of the negroes whom we have armed and disciplined and who have fought with us. . . . I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves. Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln, Collected and Edited by Allen Thorndike Rice, Published by North American Review, 1888, Reminiscence of Benjamim F. Butler, Reminiscence of Benjamim F. Butler, pp. 150-154: Lincoln was very much disturbed after the surren­der of Lee, and he had been to Richmond, upon the question of what would be the results of peace in the Southern States as affected by the contiguity of the white and black races. Shortly before the time, as I remember it, when Mr. Seward was thrown from his carriage and severely injured, being then in Washington, the President sent for the writer, and said, " General Butler, I am troubled about the negroes. We are soon to have peace. We have got some one hundred and odd thousand negroes who have been trained to arms. When peace shall come I fear lest these colored men shall organize themselves in the South, especially in the States where the negroes are in preponderance in numbers, into guerrilla parties, and we shall have down there a warfare between the whites and the negroes. In the course of the reconstruction of the Government it will become a question of how the negro is to be disposed of. Would it not be possible to export them to some place, say Liberia, or South America, and organize them into communities to support themselves? Now, General, I wish you would ex­amine the practicability of such exportation. Your organization of the flotilla which carried your army from Yorktown and Fort Monroe to City Point, and its success show that you understand such matters. Will you give this your attention, and, at as early a day as possible, report to me your views upon the subject." I replied, "Willingly," and bowed and retired. After some few days of examination, with the aid of statistics and calculations, of this topic, I repaired to the President's office in the morning, and said to him, "I have come to report to you on the question you have submitted to me, Mr. President, about the exportation of the negroes." He exhib­ited great interest, and said, "Well, what do you think of it ?" I said: "Mr. President, I assume that if the negro is to be sent away on shipboard you do not propose to enact the horrors of the mid­dle passage, but would give the negroes the air­space that the law provides for emigrants." He said, "Certainly." "Well, then, here are some calculations which will show you that if you undertake to export all of the negroes—and I do not see how you can take one portion differently from another—negro children will be born faster than your whole naval and merchant vessels, if substan­tially all of them were devoted to that use, can carry them from the country; especially as I believe that their increase will be much greater in a state of free­dom than of slavery, because the commingling of the two races does not tend to productiveness." He examined my tables carefully for some considerable time, and then he looked up sadly and said: "Your deductions seem to be correct, General. But what can we do? "I replied:" If I understand you, Mr. President, your theory is this: That the negro sol­diers we have enlisted will not return to the peaceful pursuits of laboring men, but will become a class of guerrillas and criminals. Now, while I do not see, under the Constitution, even with all the aid of Con­gress, how you can export a class of people who are citizens against their will, yet the Commander-in-Chief can dispose of soldiers quite arbitrarily. Now, then, we have large quantities of clothing to clothe them, large quantities of provision with which to supply them, and arms and everything necessary for them, even to spades and shovels, mules and wagons. Our war has shown that an army organization is the very best for digging up the soil and making in-trenchments. Witness the very many miles of intrenchments that our soldiers have dug out. I know of a concession of the United States of Colombia for a tract of thirty miles wide across the Isthmus of Panama for opening a ship canal. The enlist­ments of the negroes have all of them from two to three years to run. Why not send them all down there to dig the canal? They will withstand the climate, and the work can be done with less cost to the United States in that way than in any other. If you choose, I will take command of the expedition. We will take our arms with us, and I need not suggest to you that we will need nobody sent down to guard us from the interference of any nation. We will proceed to cultivate the land and supply ourselves with all the fresh food that can be raised in the tropics, which will be all that will be needed, and your stores of provisions and supplies of clothing will furnish all the rest. Shall I work out the details of such an expedition for you, Mr. President?" He reflected for some time, and then said: "There is meat in that suggestion, General Butler; there is meat in that suggestion. Go and talk to Seward, and see what foreign complication there will be about it. Then think it over, get your figures made, and come to me again as soon as you can. If the plan has no other merit, it will rid the country of the colored soldiers." "Oh," said I, "it will do more than that. After we get down there we shall make a humble petition for you to send our wives and children to us, which you can't well refuse, and then you will have a United States col­ony in that region which will hold its own against all comers, and be contented and happy." Yes, yes," said he, "that's it; go and see Seward." I left the office, called upon the Secretary of State, who received me kindly, and explained in a few words what the President wanted. He said: "Yes, General, I know that the President is greatly worried upon this subject. He has spoken to me of it frequently, and yours may be a solution of it; but today is my mail day. I am very much driven with what must be done to-day; but I dine, as you know, at six o'clock. Come and take a family dinner with me, and afterward, over an indifferent cigar, we will talk this matter over fully." But that evening Secretary Seward, in his drive before dinner, was thrown from his carriage and severely injured, his jaw being broken, and he was confined to his bed until the assassination of Lincoln, and the attempted murder of himself by one of the confederates of Booth, so that the subject could never be again mentioned to Mr. Lincoln. nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-26   20:01:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: nolu chan (#0) The best way to end slavery would have been for all to those northern high and mighty people just to pay a marginal price for all of of them and bring them to to the north. Everyone knows how much they they really loved black people, right? The cotton industry would have gone on (sharecropping). no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-11-26   22:47:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#2) Gotta let those eggs hatch if you want a chicken. I hate eggs but love chicken. A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-26   23:11:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: Vicomte13 (#9) That the country that permitted it was horribly traumatized is justice. According to you barbarian, Jesus must have been horrible because he didn't end slavery when he was on the earth. He didn't even talk about it as far as I can tell. A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-26   23:16:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: A K A Stone (#33) Jesus didn't have slaves. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-26   23:29:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: Vicomte13 (#14) Americans had no right, under God, to HAVE slavery. Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave.' " 17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Leviticus 25:44-46King James Version (KJV) 44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. Exodus 21:20-21 When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property. Ephesians 6:5-9King James Version (KJV) 5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; 6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; 7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: 8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. 9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. Colossians 3:22-25King James Version (KJV) 22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God; 23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; 24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. 25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons. 1 Timothy 6:1-5King James Version (KJV) 6 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. 3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-26   23:32:19 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: nolu chan (#19) Should we destroy the country, say nuke all the cities, to rid of abortion? Vic said he would vote for pro abortion Hillary over Ted Cruz if he got the nomination. Mammon is more important then innocent life is what it boiled down to. Even though his conclusion of the economy was incorrect. A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-26   23:42:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: Vicomte13 (#20) It's a thought. God said he would save the city if only one good person was in it. You would murder tens of millions for the crimes of far less number of people. Truly barbaric, sick and unchristian. A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-26   23:45:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: Vicomte13 (#22) The better answer would be for the nation to stop murdering babies. That is why you said you would vote for Hillary. Such a hypocrite. A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-26   23:46:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: Vicomte13 (#34) Jesus didn't have slaves. No, but the Romans who crucified him did. We can presume he was familiar with the issue. rlk  posted on  2016-11-26   23:50:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: nolu chan (#30) Excellent research and thread by the way. A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-26   23:59:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #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   2:04:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: A K A Stone (#35) So, Americans were Hebrews, and the Americans were respecting God's Law of slavery in the Torah, were they? No. If you're going to invoke God's law of slavery from Mt. Sinai, you had better be ready to FOLLOW it, ALL of it. God forbade the Hebrews from having their co-religionists as slaves. God required the freedom of slaves at the Jubilee. God did not permit the Hebrews to have sex with their slaves. They had to marry them, which ended their slavery. Uh oh. If you're going to invoke God, have a care for what you're invoking, because God's law of slavery was utterly disregarded by American slavers, in virtually every respect. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-27   11:00:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: nolu chan (#42) 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. Well, unless an activist Supreme Court says otherwise. "Political question" is itself a court doctrine. The court could change that doctrine. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-27   11:02:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: rlk (#40) No, but the Romans who crucified him did. We can presume he was familiar with the issue. Yes, and the Roman Empire was also destroyed. Jesus had a very simple answer: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. He didn't make distinctions among the others. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-27   11:03:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: A K A Stone (#38) God said he would save the city if only one good person was in it. You would murder tens of millions for the crimes of far less number of people. Truly barbaric, sick and unchristian. So you think the United States was sick, barbaric and unchristian for the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, etc., etc. Good to know. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-27   11:05:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: Vicomte13 (#43) If you're going to invoke God's law of slavery from Mt. Sinai, you had better be ready to FOLLOW it, ALL of it. God forbade the Hebrews from having their co-religionists as slaves. God required the freedom of slaves at the Jubilee. God did not permit the Hebrews to have sex with their slaves. They had to marry them, which ended their slavery. Uh oh. Uh oh. I quoted scripture. You didn't. As I have noticed on several occasions your intrepretations are often incorrect. Go ahead and show me from scripture where it says what you say. Your point was that any nation that practiced slavery should be destroyed by God. You hinted that any nation that supports abortion should be nuked. I know Chan said it first but your answer basically conodned it. Or would at least consider it. Since you said many times that you would vote for pro abortion Hillary over pro life Ted Cruz. Shouln't you also be judged and killed by God? Since in your heart you are ok with abortion in certain circumstances. Like instead of christian Ted Cruz becoming President. You would support a thief who murders children. You are a true hypocrite. A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-27   11:49:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: Vicomte13 (#44) Well, unless an activist Supreme Court says otherwise. "Political question" is itself a court doctrine. The court could change that doctrine. I'm not all negative on you. You are correct here imo. A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-27   11:49:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: A K A Stone (#47) Shouln't you also be judged and killed by God? We're ALL going to be killed by God - me, you, Nolu - everybody. As fas as quoting Scripture goes, you put down some lines, which didn't prove the point you were trying to make. I've played that game with you before - spent a whole afternoon lining up the poverty laws from Scripture. I posted it. It's somewhere on this board somewhere. I quoted Scripture exhaustively, in context. You ignored it completely, as if it never happened, and went right on saying exactly what you said before. Could I go in and pull out of Torah the specific provisions in which God prohibits the enslavement of fellow religionists? Sure. Could I lay out the law by which masters could not have sex with their slaves without marriage? Sure. It's all there. The law of slavery that God gave the Hebrews was a machine that was designed to induce conversion among captives, for conversion brought liberation and a share in Israel. God's law of slavery wasn't about slavery, it was about protecting lives from being killed, and giving them the chance to see the light and convert to the worship of God, at which point slavery ended. There was a purpose to it, and that purpose was not to make Israelites rich, but to be a vehicle for the conversion of slaves to God. American slavery had nothing in common with Israelite slavery. The Americans did not care about God's law of slavery. They had their own, and it was a vehicle of profit and oppression, not conversion. I could spend my afternoon putting together all of those verses comprehensively, and post it. I'm not going to, because past experience has shown you will ignore it, because it doesn't fit your politics. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-27   12:33:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: Vicomte13 (#44) Well, unless an activist Supreme Court says otherwise. "Political question" is itself a court doctrine. The court could change that doctrine. It would be as likely as the Supreme Court overturning the 13th Amendment and bringing back slavery. But if that is all you've got, I guess you have to go with it. Your argument, such as it is, depends on overturning a judicial precedent that has been repeatedly upheld for nearly two centuries. And, I wish you well in overturning the Separation of Powers. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/369/186.html U.S. Supreme Court BAKER v. CARR, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) 369 U.S. 186 * * * We have said that "In determining whether a question falls within [the political question] category, the approriateness under our system of government of attributing finality to the action of the political departments and also the lack of satisfactory criteria for a judicial determination are dominant considerations." Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 454 -455. The nonjusticiability of a political question is primarily a function of the separation of powers. Much confusion results from the capacity of the "political question" label to obscure the need for [369 U.S. 186, 211] case-by-case inquiry. Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. To demonstrate this requires no less than to analyze representative cases and to infer from them the analytical threads that make up the political question doctrine. We shall then show that none of those threads catches this case. nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-28   3:19:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: nolu chan (#50) The Supreme Court violated this doctrine when it imposed abortion and gay marriage - eminently political questions that had been decided by legislatures - on vague constitutional grounds and "emanations of penumbrae". Same thing with the Dred Scott decision, that effectively wiped out the Missouri Compromise. Of course, the Court did not ADMIT that it was answering political questions. They've always put on a fine fan dance to make their decisions seem logically justified and, indeed, inevitable. In any case, it's the system we've got, and it's not changing anytime soon. So it's very important that we control the people who get put up there, stack it with people who will decide things rightly and overturn the established precedents that are not right, in our opinion. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-28   8:39:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: rlk (#40) We can presume he was familiar with the issue. The Bible is clear on the issue, slaves obey your masters, but there was a mechanism for freeing slaves, no one remained in bondage forever unless they wanted it, so in fact it wasn't an issue in Judea, it was a fact of life. A very unpleasant fact but a fact nevertheless. The new world took slavery to a new level, creating a population of permanent slaves and importing them in large numbers paraclete  posted on  2016-11-28   16:23:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: Vicomte13 (#51) Have no fear and few hopes. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 allowed slavery in the territories where it had been prohibited. That effectively repealed a major portion of the Missouri Compromise. As for the case of Etheldred Scott, that case should have been thrown out of court as a contrived, moot case. If that wasn't bad enough, there was a clearly falsified but agreed upon statement of "facts," and it involved Scott's constitutional attorney, George Tichnor Curtis arguing to his younger brother, Justice Benjamin Curtis. And the real owner of Etheldred was a Massachusetts abolitionist congressman via his wife. Shortly after the case, the youngest justice, Curtis, was off the bench. Oh, those were the days. nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-28   19:40:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: paraclete (#52) Further, Israelites could not enslave Israelites at all. They could put then under indenture, but they have to pay them, and the indenture ended in the seventh year. Biblical slavery looked nothing like American slavery. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-28   20:10:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: Vicomte13 (#54) (Edited) Biblical slavery looked nothing like American slavery. Nor Roman slavery, some slaves did very well in Rome and even bought their freedom. There is a lesson here, don't be a harsh taskmaster and your slaves will love you, be a harsh taskmaster and your slaves will revolt paraclete  posted on  2016-11-28   20:31:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: Vicomte13 (#49) We're ALL going to be killed by God - me, you, Nolu - everybody. Now here is what God said. Not your misinformed crap. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-28   21:17:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: Vicomte13 (#49) I've played that game with you before - spent a whole afternoon lining up the poverty laws from Scripture. I posted it. It's somewhere on this board somewhere. I quoted Scripture exhaustively, in context. You ignored it completely, as if it never happened, and went right on saying exactly what you said before. Not true. If it was you would gave linked it. A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-28   21:17:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: A K A Stone (#56) ow here is what God said. Not your misinformed crap. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. So, your Scripture tells you that you're not going to die, and because it is written, and you read it that way, you believe yourself to be immortal. And you call me delusional! Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-29   0:55:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: A K A Stone (#57) Not true. If it was you would gave linked it. The thread was called "The Economics of God", and it was first posted on August 11, 2015. I walked the extra mile with you, used your preferred translation. You were inveterately hostile and remain so. It was a great deal of work putting those posts together, collecting the quotes in order, laying them end to end. I did the work, and you just ignored it and attacked it and me. So I resolved never to do that again for you. You insult me at every turn, and when I try to meet you halfway, or in that particular thread even all the way - it is completely unavailing. Experience has taught me that you are not an honest judge, and that I will get no justice in your court. So I no longer even try to come there. At one point I directly quoted Jesus to make a point - and you called me a liar because you didn't agree with the point. When I pointed out that it was Jesus saying that, not me, you simply ignored that post and attacked something else. I appreciate the forum you have put up here, this Liberty's Flame. I enjoy posting on it. I recognize that it is your site, and that you can do with it as you please. I find that you are reasonable in running this site. And that's about as far as we walk down the path with each other. Since you've called me a liar over and over again, you've made it abundantly clear that in your view I'm evil. I obviously don't share your view in that regard. There's nothing more to be said about it, and nothing to be done. I've simply given up. That's all. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-29   1:38:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: Vicomte13 (#58) So, your Scripture tells you that you're not going to die, and because it is written, and you read it that way, you believe yourself to be immortal. And you call me delusional! Of course the flesh dies. Your soul is immortal. The devil comes to kill God to give life. The wages of sin are death. We kill ourselves through sin. Of our own free will. You have much to learn. A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-29   6:56:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: Vicomte13 (#59) I walked the extra mile with you, used your preferred translation. You were inveterately hostile and remain so. Not against you. Just the crap you believe in your ignorance. I actually like you. You give your opinions. You give them in detail. I don't disagree with everything you say just the things I mention. A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-29   6:58:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: Vicomte13 (#59) It was a great deal of work putting those posts together, collecting the quotes in order, laying them end to end. I did the work, and you just ignored it and attacked it and me. Actually you had very few quotes from the Bible and mostly your opinions that didn't line up with scripture. You do that all the time. Get on your high horse and ignore what others say and just go with what the ones who call the Pope holy father, which God forbade in the Bible. I even showed you where if you don't work you don't eat. You ignored it. You're viewpoint is that of a socialist, then you try to make the Bible fit with your socialist ideology. A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-29   7:01:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: Vicomte13 (#59) Since you've called me a liar over and over again, you've made it abundantly clear that in your view I'm evil. I don't think you are evil I think you are wrong. If you don't like to hear opinions that differ from yours then you should stay off the internet. Not just here. Have a good day. A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-29   7:04:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #64. To: Vicomte13 (#59) At one point I directly quoted Jesus to make a point - and you called me a liar because you didn't agree with the point. That is not true. I notice you didn't mention what a link or even what you or me allegedly said. No context. Go ahead and show me please. You can't. A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-29   7:06:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: A K A Stone (#60) The flesh dies because God withdraws his breath from it. Scripture tells you that. God gives us breath, we live. God withdraws his breath, we die. What he is withdrawing, in truth, is our spirit out of our flesh, for breath is spirit (same word in both Hebrew and Greek). Not a sparrow falls without the Father's permission, for it is the Father who withdraws the breath from each living thing, even as he gave it the breath to begin. Again, this is Scripture. People do stupid things or, under the influence of Satan, evil things, and they are physically at risk and face death, but it is God who decides whether or not he actually withdraws their breath and they die. God decides it every time. He may decide to let the blow the Devil causes to be delivered be the killing blow, but he may decide to turn the blow aside and not let it kill. It is all ultimately in God's hands. I've been saved from physical death by a divine miracle, so I have no doubt whatever that what I write here is true. It follows Scripture and personal experience. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-29   7:24:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: A K A Stone (#64) hat is not true. I notice you didn't mention what a link or even what you or me allegedly said. No context. Go ahead and show me please. You can't. It's true. You said it. I guess to prove that I'll have to go back and point cite the message. I will do so when I have the time. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-29   7:25:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: A K A Stone (#62) You're viewpoint is that of a socialist, then you try to make the Bible fit with your socialist ideology. Not true. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-29   9:27:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #68. To: Vicomte13 (#67) Not true. Ok. But that is what it sounds like to me at times. A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-29   11:28:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #69. To: nolu chan (#30) Outstanding post as usual. pearidge  posted on  2017-04-14   16:01:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   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