Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 16th, 2012, 10:53 AM   #31
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Indiana
Posts: 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrevised View Post
I'm not sure of the legality of it, but foreign powers saw it as a joke. Also you wrote...
What the foreign powers thought is not germane to the constitutionality of the blockade.

Quote:
Lincoln ignored the peace commision sent by the Southern states. After the South outlawed protective tariffs and supported free trade the Northern murmers to coerce the states back into the Union became a crescendo
Maybe so but this does not change the fact they fired on federal troops, and a federal fort, and demonstrated they were willing to use armed force for their rebellion.
JamesMadison is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 16th, 2012, 11:06 AM   #32
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Indiana
Posts: 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrevised View Post
Really? And here I was thinking it was becaues Northern business interests and radicals in the Republican Party were pushing for Lincoln to do something. And when he failed in his attemp to start a war at Ft. Pickens, he decided to "reinforce" Sumter and as he told Gustavus Fox, he got the result he desired.
Lincoln's motivations for his response to Fort Sumter are not germane to whether his response was constitutionally permissible. Whether Lincoln's ordering a blockade of Southern States' ports as a response to the attack on Fort Sumter was done to placate the demands of Northern business interests and radicals in the Republican Party or he had some other motivation (such as legitimately feeling it was necessary to act) is not relevant to the issue of whether his ordering a blockade was constitutional.
JamesMadison is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 11:12 AM   #33
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Alabama
Posts: 279

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMadison View Post
Lincoln's motivations for his response to Fort Sumter are not germane to whether his response was constitutionally permissible. Whether Lincoln's ordering a blockade of Southern States' ports as a response to the attack on Fort Sumter was done to placate the demands of Northern business interests and radicals in the Republican Party or he had some other motivation (such as legitimately feeling it was necessary to act) is not relevant to the issue of whether his ordering a blockade was constitutional.
I realize its not relevant. I was jokingly responding to Rongo. Although I do believe what I said in reference to Sumter. Sorry for the confusion.
Unrevised is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 11:23 AM   #34
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Indiana
Posts: 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrevised View Post
I realize its not relevant. I was jokingly responding to Rongo. Although I do believe what I said in reference to Sumter. Sorry for the confusion.
I think an argument can be made to support both positions. I am not convinced, based on the evidence I have seen, Lincoln ordered a blockade to appease the Northern business interets and radicals in the Republican Party. Do I think their opinion played a role? Sure but I am dubious Lincoln's decision to order a blockade can be reduced to placating the demands from those two groups.
JamesMadison is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 01:07 PM   #35
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Alabama
Posts: 279

Quote:
Viewing the question whether Ft Sumter shall be evacuated, as a political one, I remark, that the effect of its evacuation upon the public mind will depend upon the concurrent & subsequent action of the govt. If it shall be understood that by its evacuation we intend to acknowledge our inability to enforce the laws and our intention to allow treason & rebellion to run its course, the measure will be extremely disastrous and the Administration will become very unpopular. If however the country can be made to understand that the Ft is abandoned from necessity and at the same time Ft Pickens & other forts in our possession shall be defended and the power of the Govt vindicated, the measure will be popular & the country will sustain the Administration.
Believing that Ft Sumter can not be successfully defended I regard its evacuation as a necessity & I advise that Maj Andersons command shall be unconditionally withdrawn
At the same time I would adopt the most vigorous measures for the defense of the other Forts, and if we have the power I would blockade the Southern ports and enforce the collection of the revenue (there's that word again!) with all the powers of the Govt
Mar 29. 1861
C B Smith
[ Endorsed by Lincoln:]
In cabinet.
Notes of cabinet meeting on Fort Sumter. March 29, 1861

The idea of a blockade was tossed about before the firing on Sumter.
Unrevised is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 02:10 PM   #36

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Viewing the question whether Ft Sumter shall be evacuated, as a political one, I remark, that the effect of its evacuation upon the public mind will depend upon the concurrent & subsequent action of the govt. If it shall be understood that by its evacuation we intend to acknowledge our inability to enforce the laws and our intention to allow treason & rebellion [there's those words again] to run its course, the measure will be extremely disastrous and the Administration will become very unpopular. If however the country can be made to understand that the Ft is abandoned from necessity and at the same time Ft Pickens & other forts in our possession shall be defended and the power of the Govt vindicated, the measure will be popular & the country will sustain the Administration.
Believing that Ft Sumter can not be successfully defended I regard its evacuation as a necessity & I advise that Maj Andersons command shall be unconditionally withdrawn
At the same time I would adopt the most vigorous measures for the defense of the other Forts, and if we have the power I would blockade the Southern ports and enforce the collection of the revenue (there's that word again!) with all the powers of the Govt
Mar 29. 1861
C B Smith
[ Endorsed by Lincoln:]
In cabinet.
Let's see.

Annual revenue collected from Southern ports: $3 million
Value of slaves held in Southern states: $3 Billion
Putting down "treason and rebellion": Priceless
Rongo is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 03:55 PM   #37
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Alabama
Posts: 279

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
Let's see.

Annual revenue collected from Southern ports: $3 million
Value of slaves held in Southern states: $3 Billion
Putting down "treason and rebellion": Priceless
Which rebel leaders were tried and committed of treason?
Unrevised is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 04:31 PM   #38

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrevised View Post
Which rebel leaders were tried and committed of treason?
None that I can think of. But that's not the point. Most Northerners believed that the attack on Fort Sumter (not to mention the acts leading up to it) were indeed treason and rebellion. And thus they supported the use of armed force to put it down. The $3 million in tariff revenues was doodly-squat.
Rongo is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 04:35 PM   #39
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Alabama
Posts: 279

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
None that I can think of. But that's not the point. Most Northerners believed that the attack on Fort Sumter (not to mention the acts leading up to it) were indeed treason and rebellion. And thus they supported the use of armed force to put it down. The $3 million in tariff revenues was doodly-squat.
Like i said Lincoln got what he wanted.
Unrevised is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 04:44 PM   #40

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrevised View Post
Like i said Lincoln got what he wanted.
Yes, he desparately wanted 4 years of sleepless nights followed by an assassin's bullet.
Rongo is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
blockade


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Blockade of Axis powers-haw effective it was? Edward War and Military History 0 April 4th, 2011 12:52 AM
Cuban Blockade crossroadclarence American History 110 November 22nd, 2009 05:32 PM
Union blockade atanker American History 3 August 16th, 2006 09:21 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.