Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
"Ok, Ft Sumpter was purchased, initially on long lease for the use of a Fort to be constructed, then much later on a full purchase price, due primarily to Congress inability to maintain the cost the long term lease being agreed between State and Government and disiring to own outright the proprty rights to the Fort by the US AG of the 1830s. Not all Federal Forts were fully purchsed and ownership passed from the states to the Union untill 1890 or so.
What the SC AG was pointing out that Congress had not paid that full purchase price, not had it mainatined in full the original long term lease payments part of the contracts, but had invested heavily in the construction costs of the Fort. Hence the legal forms of ownership revert to SC due to failure to fullfill the contractual obilgations,yes SC had passed full and complete tranfer of property to Congress, on the understanding Congress would actually a) pay the lease while construction of the Fort was undertaken, and B) much later, aquire full property rights after making full payment to SC, along with outstounding lease payments. Congress had never done so, which was in no small measure why it was not a federal post, as it was not federal property, and why the Pres and US AG were aghast when without orders Anderson moved to it."
This does not seem in sync with events in SC in those days.
Construction was started (Sec of War and later Senator Calhoun had been the man pushing for the fort to be built in the 1820s, so I doubt many people were going to drag their feet). Later a local huckster claimed he owned the land and filed suit. (We are talking here about the bottom of a river.) Construction stopped, and the Federals were embarassed. The SC government and legislature resolved this whole issue of property rights and passed the necessary legislation to transfer the spot to the Federal government around 1835. The SC AG finally recorded the transfer of the rights in 1841 or 1842. Construction started up again.
In the 1850s, Sec of War Davis tried to give the control of harbor posts back to the states as a cost-cutting move. The states refused. That is why there was a tiny Federal garrison there in 1860.
"Ok, Ft Sumpter was purchased, initially on long lease for the use of a Fort to be constructed, then much later on a full purchase price, due primarily to Congress inability to maintain the cost the long term lease being agreed between State and Government and disiring to own outright the proprty rights to the Fort by the US AG of the 1830s. Not all Federal Forts were fully purchsed and ownership passed from the states to the Union untill 1890 or so.
What the SC AG was pointing out that Congress had not paid that full purchase price, not had it mainatined in full the original long term lease payments part of the contracts, but had invested heavily in the construction costs of the Fort. Hence the legal forms of ownership revert to SC due to failure to fullfill the contractual obilgations,yes SC had passed full and complete tranfer of property to Congress, on the understanding Congress would actually a) pay the lease while construction of the Fort was undertaken, and B) much later, aquire full property rights after making full payment to SC, along with outstounding lease payments. Congress had never done so, which was in no small measure why it was not a federal post, as it was not federal property, and why the Pres and US AG were aghast when without orders Anderson moved to it."
Except it's completely wrong. The author of that post totally misread what Hayne was doing. Hayne was offering that South Carolina would pay the Federal Government the cost of Fort Sumter once it was handed over. In December of 1836, South Carolina had ceded to the United States "all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state."
The Federal Government held full and complete title to Fort Sumter and the artificial island on which it was constructed. As Holt said, "The title of the United States to Fort Sumter is complete and incontestible."
The only reference I've ever seen used that secession was unlawful is Texas vs White.
There's also White v. Hart, where the US Supreme Court ruled: "The doctrine of secession is a doctrine of treason, and practical secession is practical treason, seeking to give itself triumph by revolutionary violence. The late rebellion was without any element of right or sanction of law. The duration and magnitude of the war did not change its character. In some respects it was not unlike the insurrection of a county or other municipal subdivision of territory against the State to which it belongs. In such cases the State has inherently the right to use all the means necessary to put down the resistance to its authority, and restore peace, order, and obedience to law. If need be, it has the right also to call on the government of the Union for the requisite aid to that end. Whatever precautionary or penal measures the State may take when the insurrection is suppressed, the proposition would be a strange one to maintain, that while it lasted the county was not a part of the State, and hence was absolved from the duties, liabilities, and restrictions which would have been incumbent upon it if it had remained in its normal condition and relations. The power exercised in putting down the late rebellion is given expressly by the Constitution to Congress. That body made the laws and the President executed them. The granted power carried with it not only the right to use the requisite means, but it reached further and carried with it also the authority to guard against the renewal of the conflict, and to remedy the evils arising from it in so far as that could be effected by appropriate legislation. At no time were the rebellious States out of the pale of the Union. Their rights under the Constitution were suspended, but not destroyed. Their constitutional duties and obligations were unaffected and remained the same." [White v. Hart, (80 US 646, 650-651), 1871]
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
That ruled the Confederate war debt to be unconstitutional,
No, it didn't. Texas v. White was a case involving bonds in Texas. As part of determining its jurisdiction in the case, the Court had to rule on secession. If secession were legal, the Court would not have jurisdiction to decide the case. If secession were illegal, then the Court would have jurisdiction. The Court ruled secession was illegal and thus it had jurisdiction to decide the case.
[quote=suwannee]
but it was after the war.[/QUOTE ]
Not completely relevant, since the Court decides questions after they arise, not before, and since the Court decides questions based on what the law was at the time of the actions, not at the time of the decision. Additionally, the Court's rulings in Texas v. White and White v. Hart were completely consistent with the case law prior to the war that addressed the relationship of the states to the Federal Government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
There is now and was then no prohibition in the Constitution against secession.
In fact, there is. By the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2, no state can claim US Law and the US Constitution no longer apply to it. That is what an ordinance of secession purports to do, so by the Supremacy Clause an ordinance of secession can never take effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
Texas vs White is not constitutional law and could be reversed by any Supreme Court.
The ruling on secession has never been reversed and probably never will be. Texas v. White most certainly is constitutional law, just as any other Court decision is constitutional law.
There were plenty of Supreme Court cases that dealt with the subject of secession before the war and could be reviewed by those who proposed secession.
Actually, Neil, the subject of secession didn't reach the Court until Texas v. White. I think you're referring to other decisions of the Court that deal with the relationship of the states to the Federal Government and to each other which debunk the radical state rights theory that secession would be a constitutional act due to the complete obligation placed on the states.
Interesting opinions you have. I hear tell that when two lawyers argue a case before a jury, they decide that one of them is right and the other is wrong.
Can you believe it?
The Supreme Court is subject to the Constitution; they do not develop it, they refer to it. If they were developers of the Constitution then they would be referring to themselves.
The Supreme Court makes ex post facto judgements? What a novel concept - did you ever try it in moot court?
I appreciate your input to my thread, and even though I don't share your capacity for wrongness I would defend your right to be wrong to the death.
No, Texas v. White and the associated cases are part of US law in the same way any decision by the Supreme Court is. Until overturned, or superceded by new legislation/amendment, they stand. This true whether we are speaking of White v. Texas, or Brown v. Board of Ed, or Plessy v. Fergusson.
But in this case, the decision has stood for 130 years and more without being overturned. It is possible some future court might reverse it, as with any other decision. It is highly unlikely that will happen.
While the ruling on secession in Texas v. White has never been overturned, the central decision of TvW has been.
"It is apparent that the original decision of the court in reference to the Texas indemnity bonds in Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, has been questioned and limited in important particulars in the subsequent cases involving the same questions. The position there taken that the legislature of Texas, while the State was owner of the bonds, could limit their negotiability by an act of legislation, of which all subsequent purchasers were charged with notice, although the bonds on their face were payable to bearer, must be regarded as overruled. And the further position that negotiable government securities, redeemable at the pleasure of the government after a specified day, but in which no date is fixed for final payment, cease to be negotiable as overdue after the day named when they first become redeemable, must be regarded as limited to cases where the title of the purchaser is acquired with notice of the defect of title, or under circumstances which discredit the instrument, such as would affect the title to negotiable paper payable on demand, when purchased after an unreasonable length of time from the date of issue." [Morgan v. United States, 113 US 476, 496]
The holding of Court regarding the unconstitutionality of secession in Texas v. White was left untouched.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
No, that is not so. The United States began before the Constitution and continued under it. Laws that were passed before it under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union continued after it was adopted -- and in many if not all cases this was formally acknowledged by the first session of Congress under the Constitution, making small changes where necessary to be in accord with the new Constitution. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 was one of them.
I have to disagree. The Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation, and they ceased to have any effect. The Articles of Confederation are historical relics now, not United States law. The new US Congress passed laws to replace old laws from the Confederation that would still have to be in effect under the Constitution, or in some cases to recognize those laws under the Constitution. One of these was the Northwest Ordinance. On 7 Aug 1789, the First Congress passed "An Act to provide for the Government of the Territory Northwest of the River Ohio," which provided that the 1787 Northwest Ordinance would continue to be in force under the Constitution and adapted its provisions to work under the Constitution. See Statutes at Large, Vol I, pp. 50-53. The body of US Law under the Constitution begins with the Constitution and doesn't go further back. The US Statutes at Large under the Constitution don't include US statutes passed under the Articles of Confederation.
Thanks for the welcome, but the thread is a community thread, not owned by anyone in particular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
The Supreme Court is subject to the Constitution; they do not develop it, they refer to it.
Which is why they ruled secession unconstitutional--twice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
If they were developers of the Constitution then they would be referring to themselves.
Like James Madison?
"The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." [James Madison to Alexander Hamilton, 20 July 1788]
"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure." [James Madison to Nicholas Trist, 15 Feb 1830]
Quote:
Originally Posted by suwannee
The Supreme Court makes ex post facto judgements? What a novel concept - did you ever try it in moot court?
What's your point? The Supreme Court decides what the law was at the time of the actions. So the Court's declaring secession unconstitutional means that it was unconstitutional when it was attempted by the confederate states.
I thought he was referring to the attack - my mistake.
Now that is interesting. Anderson, ringed round with savage Southern anarchists, gets a message from the Secretary of War within a week of secession, giving him discretionary powers to go to war.
Obviously the Confederates allowed a messenger through - perhaps they delivered a telegram? Carrier pigeon.
Or those discretionary war powers could have been given before secession.
Yet it sounds like he had freedom of movement - to receive messages - apparently not read by the "enemy" or Sumter would have been occupied - go for boat rides in the night - yet he was in such danger that he had to go to Sumter for safety - even though CSA authorities had offered to let him leave.
Any of which demonstrate that the US government - long before - intended to fight. Motive.
Yet he was in a fortress with heavy guns from which he could defend himself; yet he couldn't perform his intended mission from there. The guns of Sumter could be turned on him! So he evacuates to Sumter where the entire harbor can fire on him for safety? Wouldn't he have been safer if he spiked the guns of Sumter instead? It appears he needed the guns of Sumter to perform his mission. Means.
Because he knew there was a war fleet being sent and he could better suppress shore batteries from Sumter when that fleet arrived - and knew this a week after the secession. Opportunity.
His move to Sumter was under war orders, and an act of war. The United States planned an attack from the start.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
