Drag to reposition your photo

T Lee Horne III

Male. Lives in Pensacola, Florida, United States. Is single.

About Me

I retired when I turned 50 years old. I am working again at 72 years old.

I started back to work at A... View More

Liked Pages1

34 Likes

CSA II: The New Confederate States of America

Company, Organization, or Institution

T Lee Horne III

Report this User

Status Update

T Lee Horne III

April 17, 2026 8:33 am

Chet McAteer · April 1861: When the Constitution Was Cast Aside and Sovereign States Took Their Stand The Crimes of April 1861 mark one of the most devastating turning points in American history, whe... View MoreChet McAteer · April 1861: When the Constitution Was Cast Aside and Sovereign States Took Their Stand The Crimes of April 1861 mark one of the most devastating turning points in American history, when the fragile balance between federal authority and State Sovereignty, carefully constructed by the framers of the Constitution…gave way to force, coercion, and ultimately war. In the wake of the surrender of Fort Sumter, the administration of Abraham Lincoln moved swiftly not toward reconciliation, but toward consolidation of power. Under the guise of preserving the Union, Lincoln issued a proclamation calling for 75,000 troops to suppress what he termed a “rebellion,” despite the fact that several Southern States had exercised their lawful right to Secede from a Voluntary Compact, with a foundation built upon the Founding Fathers, such as James Madison: “A Rightful Secession, requires the consent of others, or an Abuse of the Compact, absolving the Seceding Party from all obligations imposed by it.” —James Madison To many in the South, this act was not preservation, it was invasion. The Constitution, as understood by the Founding generation, established a Union of States bound by Consent, not compulsion. Yet Lincoln’s actions, taken without Congress in session, were seen by critics as a direct violation of that Compact. By unilaterally calling up troops, effectively suspending habeas corpus, and preparing military force against Sovereign States under the Principles of federalism, the executive branch assumed powers never explicitly granted. Governors across the South and Border States responded with alarm and defiance. Claiborne Fox Jackson famously denounced the federal requisition as “illegal, unconstitutional, and revolutionary…inhumane and diabolical,” while Henry M. Rector rejected the demand as an insult to free people who would not be subjugated by force. These reactions did not arise in a vacuum. The decades leading up to 1861 were marked by escalating sectional tensions rooted in competing economic systems, interpretations of Constitutional authority, and disputes over representation and taxation. Southern States, largely agrarian and export-driven, bore a disproportionate share of federal tariff burdens, particularly with the passage of the Morrill Tariff, which many believed favored Northern industrial interests at their expense. Leaders such as Thaddeus Stevens openly acknowledged that such policies would disadvantage the South, reinforcing the perception that the federal government no longer operated as a neutral arbiter among the States. Equally significant was the question of Sovereignty. Southern leaders correctly argued that the Union was a Compact among States, each retaining ultimate authority over its own affairs. When that Compact was, in their view, violated, whether through economic coercion, political marginalization, or failure to enforce Constitutional protections, they rightly asserted the Right to Withdraw, as explained by that great lawyer William Rawles, selected by President George Washington for Attorney General of the new Republic. “The States, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics. Governments of dissimilar forms and Principles cannot long maintain a binding coalition.”-William Rawle “To withdraw from the Union is a solemn, serious act. Whenever it may appear expedient to the people of a state, it must be manifested in a direct and unequivocal manner. If it is ever done indirectly, the people must refuse to elect representatives, as well as to suffer their legislature to re-appoint senators. The senator whose time had not yet expired, must be forbidden to continue in the exercise of his functions.” -William Rawle Thus Our Founders, who were the builders of Our Constitutional Republic were not only aware of the legal Principle of Secession but have their approval to it. The Secession of States like South Carolina, Georgia, and Texas was thus framed not as rebellion, but as a lawful act of self-government. The formation of the Confederate States of America under Jefferson Davis represented, in this perspective, a continuation of the American revolutionary tradition rather than a repudiation of it. As Thaddeus Stevens himself noted: "By the law of nations, which we must honor as a civilized people, the conflict between the North and South was a war between acknowledged belligerents, each defending its sovereign rights. The Southern Confederacy, formed in the spirit of 1776, severed no eternal bonds but affirmed the voluntary nature of the Union. The future of these States should rest not on the conqueror’s will, but on mutual respect and constitutional fidelity, allowing them to resume their place as equal partners rather than subjugated provinces.” The events surrounding Fort Sumter further deepened the divide. Prior to open hostilities, efforts at compromise and peaceful resolution had been attempted, including Armistice agreements and negotiations over federal property and offers to assume their share of the taxes for the Forts. However, the decision by the Lincoln administration to resupply and reinforce federal forts within Confederate territory, particularly Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens, was rightly viewed by Southern authorities as a deliberate provocation and an open Act of War based upon the terms of the Armistice. Even Lincoln himself acknowledged that the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, regardless of outcome, would advance his broader objective. When Confederate forces, under P. G. T. Beauregard, demanded evacuation and were refused, the resulting bombardment became the flashpoint for war. Notably, statements from within the federal government at the time complicate the commonly held narrative that the conflict was initially waged to end slavery. In communications to foreign powers, William H. Seward emphasized that the institution of slavery would remain unchanged regardless of the war’s outcome. William Seward's comment completely destroys the fabricated assumption that there War was fought to end Slavery: “The Territories will remain in all respects the same, whether the revolution shall succeed or fail. The condition of slavery in the several States will remain just the same, whether it succeed or fail… The rights of the States and the condition of every being in them will remain subject to exactly the same laws and forms of administration, whether the revolution shall succeed or fail… If it fails, the disaffected States would be members of the United States; but their Constitutions and Laws, customs, habits, and institutions will remain the same.” November 4, 1860 An editorial in the edition of the Charleston Mercury said of the tariff crisis: “The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism.” November 9, 1860, the New York Herald: “Each State is organized as a complete government, holding the purse and wielding the sword, possessing the right to break the tie of the confederation as a nation might break a treaty, and to repel coercion as a nation might repel invasion. Coercion, if it were possible, is out of the question.” In the November 21, 1860 edition of the Cincinnati Daily Press, an editorial said of secession: “We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute.” Nov. 26, 1860, The New York Tribune: “If the cotton States unitedly and earnestly wish to withdraw peacefully from the Union, we think they should and would be allowed to do so. Any attempt to competition l them by force to remain would be contrary to the principles enunciated in the immortal Declaration of Independence -- contrary to the fundamental ideas on which human liberty is based." This acknowledgment suggests that the immediate cause of the conflict was not emancipation, but the preservation of federal authority and territorial integrity. Thus, April 1861 stands as a moment when Constitutional interpretation, economic conflict, and political ideology collided with irreversible consequences. To those in the South, the call to arms from Washington represented not the defense of liberty, but its abandonment, a transformation of a Union of Consent into one of coercion. Whether viewed as rebellion or resistance, the Southern response was rooted in a deeply held belief in the Principles of self-government and Constitutional limits on centralized power! THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT! In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance, C.M.McAteer January 19, 2009 References Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion, Series I, Vol. IV. Lincoln Takes Command (UNC Press, 1941). The Civil War Day by Day (Da Capo Press, 1971). Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. The Story of the Confederacy. Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, Second Session. Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Roy P. Basler. National Archives Microfilm Publications, Civil War Records of 1861.

View Less

Be the first person to like this.

Recent Photos

View More Photos