The Confederacy was About Slavery

I'll pass. I have this nagging feeling that my membership would only be perfunctory. Enjoy.

Just like your opinions, heh? LOL

The implication in what you write about John B Floyd is misleading, since it hasn't been established that Secretaries of War actually needed consent from the President or Congress in discharging their normal duties toward Federal garrisons: States in the Union were entitled to arms under the quota system.

Also, how do you explain (for instance) that when Palmetto men tried to buy 40,000 more muskets above quota, Floyd actually turned them down ? !

The allegation you make appears merely to be repetition of contemporary press hearsay that he shipped arms in deliberate anticipation of a civil war so, far from being 'corroborated', there's actually zero *direct* evidence for this: Floyd was indicted for corruption in office, nothing more.

Similarly, even if militias had attempted to seize and / or fire on Federal property without compensation prior to the Lincoln presidency, they would acts of criminality, not war, and your use of 'so called' State troops is indicative, since an implication of State sanctioning hasn't been substantiated.

was S Carolina a sovereign nation separated from the US at the time it attacked Ft SUmter? This has been an area of debate over drinks since it happened. The Virginia statement about the "Rights of the people in setting aside..." has no basis in law in the Constitution, but that it represents a condition of "natural LAw" and, as such, it was our basis of self-evident rights to declare our own Independence from Britain. So, Im gonna lean toward the "Act of War" rather than criminality since South Carolina had already seceded on Boxing Day previous.

First, most of the shipments made by Floyd were not to Federal garrisons, but to state armories. As Grant noted in his memoirs, both small arms and heavy artillery were therefore ready at hand to be seized when secession had taken place. Fortunately, Buchanan was able to rescind the orders to ship ordnance to Galveston and to Ship Island before the shipments were actually made. Second, Article One, Section Eight gives Congress the power to provide for arming the militia--Congress gave President Washington the power (and by extension, all subsequent presidents) to establish and regulate arsenals in the United States. Congress did not give any authority for arsenals to the Secretary of War, it was given to the president.

Floyd was indicted for conspiracy and fraud. I haven't said that he was charged for the shipments. I also haven't said that he was tried--he was not, the indictment was quashed.

Your expression "even if militias had attempted" implies that they didn't, which is false. I'm not going to repeat my work, but i've already linked a page from a University in Florida showing that so-called state troops of Alabama and Florida seized some federal facilities, and attempted to seize Forts Barrancas and McRae at Pensacola. I use the term so-called state troops because that is what the states of Alabama, Florida and South Carolina called the troops--many of them militia members, although not exclusively so--which they used to seize or attempt to seize federal property. Article One, Section Ten, reads, in its entirety:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Congress had not authorized Alabama, Florida or South Carolina to keep troops in time of peace. Those states did indeed sanction keeping troops in time of peace. The subsequent establishment of the Confederate States (a clear violation of Article One, Section Ten) is clear evidence that those states met at Montgomery, Alabama, intended to act upon a basis of unconstitutional sovereignty.

It appears to me that you don't know as much as you seem to want to suggest that you do.

Yes, and Florida seceded on January 10, 1861, and Alabama seceded on January 11, 1861. Far from repudiating the acts of so-called state troops in seizing or attempting to seize federal installations, they appointed officers and sent Braxton Bragg to seize Fort Pickens at Pensacola. His natural incompetence notwithstanding, i think that the arrival of a naval force with troops was responsible for keeping Fort Pickens.

After Lt. Slemmer withdrew his troops to Fort Pickens, so-called state troops from Mississippi and Louisiana joined the forces at Pensacola which intended to take and hold Fort Pickens.

As you know, the Constitution is silent in the matter of secession. As you say, South Carolina seceded in Dec 1860, so it could be argued that (at that point) Fort Sumter became a military outpost of an alien power on sovereign territory, but only being attacked after a four month interim in April 1861.

Actually, my remarks were probably more in response to what 'Setanta' wrote on page 56 of the thread: "On January 9, 1861, so-called 'state troops' of South Carolina fired on The Star of the West, and unarmed merchant ship, which was attempting to each Fort Sumter". The implication being that official armed hostilities began at the point (rather than when the Fort was itself attacked in April) and were, moreover, State initiated.

I was merely pointing out that (since the vessel wasn't a warship, and in the absence of direct evidence that its attackers were authorized agents of the State) an equally satisfactory explanation could be one of criminality, rather than axiomatically a State endorsed act of war.

First, as i have pointed out, United States installations were attacked in January, 1861 by so-called state troops of Florida and Alabama. I say so-called state troops because that is what the states who raised and armed the troops called them. When a state raises a body of men and arms them, and that body of men then attacks a Federal installation, a state-endorsed act of war is the best description.

The Star of the West was transporting troops and supplies to a Federal installation. I know of no one in his right mind who would allege that the President of the United States needs the permission of any state to reinforce and re-supply Federal installations. I also can't think that anyone in their right mind would allege that these were acts of mere criminality for which the states in questions were not responsible, the more so as there is no evidence that those states attempted to punish the putative criminals.

Grant's remarks are historical anecdote, not direct evidence against Floyd. If the proper contemporary authorities concluded that a case resting on hearsay and hostile press allegation wasn't a reasonable one to answer (even on a balance of probability) perhaps it isn't sensible to insist on unsubstantiated (and clearly tendentious) innuendo that Floyd was guilty of illegally shipping arms to States in a deliberate preparation for a war against the National government. As you indicated, he wasn't even indicted for anything vaguely along those lines, just for malfeasance in office: taking bribes :-)

I wrote merely in the conditional case, and intended no implication: that's your (if understandable) inference. My essential point was that there's no direct evidence to support an implication of State sanctioning. Since you're the one making the positive claim to the contrary, the burden of proof rests with you to substantiate that position by simply referencing checkable sources, the 'work' of a few moments typing, not tortuously "going back".

The supremacy clause does not make the Constitution the supreme law of the land, the Constitution *is* the supreme law of the land. The Supremacy clause assigns the authority to the federal government over the States, as in Federal Law trumps State law.

Was there one Law or provision in the Constitution (in 1861) that specifically prohibited individual States from leaving the Union when they choose ?

1. Grant's remarks are anecdotal, not direct evidence: as you indicated, Floyd was merely indicted for malfeasance (taking bribes). It would seem then, that the actions of the proper contemporary authorities (in not prosecuting what would've been a heinous crime) suggest that it would be unreasonable to insist that he deliberately armed States for a war with the Federal government and deceived President and Congress, unsubstantiated allegations in the press and subtle innuendo not-with-standing :-)

2. That's inference: the essential implication of writing in the conditional case was that there's no direct evidence of State sanctioning for the activities to which you refer, the burden of proof being on 'implications' to the contrary.

No need to 'repeat' any tortuous 'work': just give us the checkable sources: merely the 'work' of a few moments review and typing.

The supremacy clause doesn't *make* the Constitution the supreme law of the land, the Constitution *is* the supreme law of the land. The Supremacy clause merely assigns the authority to the Federal government over the States, as in Federal Law trumps State law.

Was there one Law or provision in the Constitution (in 1861) that specifically prohibited individual States from leaving the Union when they choose ?

Grant's remarks are anecdotal, not direct evidence: as you indicated, Floyd was merely indicted for malfeasance (taking bribes). It would seem then, that the actions of the proper contemporary authorities (in not prosecuting what would've been a heinous crime) suggest that it would be unreasonable to insist that he deliberately armed States for a war with the Federal government and deceived President and Congress, unsubstantiated allegations in the press and subtle innuendo not-with-standing :-)

That's inference: the essential implication of writing in the conditional case was that there's no direct evidence of State sanctioning for the activities to which you refer, the burden of proof being on 'implications' to the contrary.

No need to 'repeat' any tortuous 'work': just give us the checkable sources: merely the 'work' of a few moments review and typing.

The supremacy clause doesn't *make* the Constitution the supreme law of the land, the Constitution *is* the supreme law of the land. The Supremacy clause merely assigns the authority to the federal government over the States as in Federal Law trumps State law.

Was there one Law or provision in the Constitution (in 1861) that specifically prohibited individual States from leaving the Union when they choose ?

But there is direct evidence that the batteries that fired on the Star of the West were "authorized agents" of South Carolina. In fact, there's lots of evidence. Did you think those cannons were owned and operated by private citizens?

Is there direct evidence for what you're concluding. Alabama, for instance, seceded on the 11th January, attacks prior to that date would therefore be just as much in the nature of criminal damage as a "State-endorsed act of war". Following secession, wouldn't the target then have been an alien (and unwelcome) military presence on sovereign territory.

Thanks for the expert diagnosis, but I can only agree that a State would be unlikely to discipline (in view of the subsequent bitterness of the conflict) anyone who had previously acted against 'transporting' that was being done within its then independent sovereign territory. Still, there's no direct evidence that the 'Star' was attacked at State behest (as opposed to the actions of a few local 'hot-heads) is there: and why was the 'transporting' being done at all.

Rhetorical loaded questions aren't direct evidence: I could similarly ask: what's to say the offenders weren't local 'hot-heads' acting illegally, rather than carrying out State orders ?

All of the documents and other contemporary evidence which prove conclusively that they were carrying out state (and later CSA) orders.

Really, if you want to say that the troops who fired on the Star of the West and Fort Sumter were just a bunch of rowdy guys with heavy ordnance, nothing's stopping you. You'd be wrong, of course, and might even be considered an idiot by many, but you can still say it.

The so-called state troops of Alabama participated in attacks on Federal installations in Florida. The facts in this matter are not your friends.

Why are you so eager to justify the actions of these people? Do you resent the end of slavery?

You know, E L R James, it helps to have a coherent rhetorical destination. Leaving aside for a moment that the topic of the thread is whether or not the Confederacy was about slavery, what are your remarks supposed to mean? Do you allege that vast criminal gangs of tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, roamed the South in 1861? Are you then saying that states were entitled, after the fact, to hold and employ Federal installations seized by criminal gangs? Your quibbles about whether Floyd deserved to be criminally indicted for his actions don't explain why he found it expedient to ship more than 100,000 stand of arms from northern armories to southern armories. If that was not so that they might be used in time of war, why did he do it? You have ignored the Armories Act of 1794 which i have cited, which gives the President of the United States, not the Secretary of War, the authority to establish and maintain armories. By what authority do you allege that Floyd acted? Joe has asked a very good question about your so-called criminal gangs possessing heavy ordnance, and i would add the powder and shot to use them. Were the states helpless to prevent their actions? Were they justified after the fact in taking advantage of these (according to you) mere criminal acts? You also have not addressed the constitutional violations that i mentioned, that states may not keep troops in time of peace and that states may not form confederations. You harp on the constitution not prohibiting states from leaving the union, but the constitution also does not authorize states to leave the union. It seems to me that you see only arguments which are convenient to your thesis.

But that leaves us with a big problem. Just exactly what is your thesis?

You're simply reducing my point about criminal actions to metaphorical hyperbole: by your logic, we'd be saying that the storming of the US Embassy in Libya was an act of war. Not everyone is an "idiot" just because they don't agree with you Joe :-)

It's not as if any startling new information has been uncovered about John B Floyd: all was known to the Federal authorities at the time (in their righteous might, as it were) and they concluded 'no case to answer': so end of the story !

Again, organized violence perpetrated against the property and personnel of one state on the sovereign territory of another (which may or may not have acquiesced in the deed) need not necessarily be taken as an act of war.

In September 2012, the US Embassy in Benghazi was stormed by a militant mob: murder, malicious wounding and arson are criminal actions, and there was never a question of calling for volunteers to invade Libya on the issue.

Not an exact historical parallel with the events following the secession of States from the Union perhaps, but the principal is logically the same.

Certainly, armed militant mobs (whether agents of the state or not) attacked Federal installations. However, it's interesting to note that Lincoln "thought fit to call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union [to] cause [its] laws to be duly executed". It would seem then, that the President of the United States was invoking ("in virtue of the power in [him] vested") the Constitution for armed intervention to uphold the *law* (because US marshals weren't (as he indicated) up to the job, not (from his viewpoint) retaliating to 'acts of war'.

Adducing evidence merely to suit an obvious viewpoint is quite acceptable on adversarial threads, and we certainly have the pleasure of seeing a brilliantly presented Union showcase on this one :-)

Where in my writing is there anything even to suggest that I "resent the end of slavery": that's an outrageous inference ! Of course the Confederacy was about slavery: it was founded on that basis: there's no question of it.