To the extent that the site
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jb15.html is a credible
source, it seems that Buchanan is best described as sticking his head in
the sand. Drawing a legal conclusion from his inaction seems like a poor
defense for firing on the US Army. A check of
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/al16.html shows the page
opening on the words in Lincoln's Inaugural Address where he tells
southerners there's a new philosophy in the Washington. If nothing else,
the fact that they had to fire upon Fort Sumpter to take it should have
clued at least a few sensible heads that they were doing wrong.

                                         Anne

At 02:00 PM 2/20/03 -0500, you wrote:
>That
>secession's legitimacy was open to debate before that is evident in the
>response of President James Buchanan to the crisis.  If the President was
>willing to let them go, and to let them take possession of federal
>property -- like forts -- then why wouldn't the Southern states think
>they couldn't?
>
>
>David Kiracofe
>College of Charleston
>Department of History
>66 George Street
>Charleston, SC 29424
>
>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
>at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

Anne Pemberton
[log in to unmask]

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.educationalsynthesis.org

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html