Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Continued occupation with hostile intent (which was obvious to all) voided any agreements by which the property was transferred.
I'm afraid I don't see a "hostile" intent. Could you indulge me with evidence of that?
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
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.
So the Federal government never fulfilled its contractural obligations...
...and hence the fort remained the property of South Carolina.
I'm afraid I don't see a "hostile" intent. Could you indulge me with evidence of that?
Ole
Oh thats probaly a reference to the intercepted comms between Anderson and Washington, where he talks of destruction of lighthouses and shipping, which was part of the mind game being played out in the Harbour, Anderson knew the telegraphs were relayed verbatam to the SC officials, and made no secret of what he could do from Sumter.
Anderson to Cooper, Official Records: Armies, Series I, Volume I, page 113.
Anderson had sent this message to Adjutant General Cooper: "[The Governor] knows not how entirely the city of Charleston is in my power. I can cut his communication off from the sea, and thereby prevent the reception of supplies, and close the harbor, even at night, by destroying the lighthouses."
Thanks for the heads up on that. As it happened, the Confederates destroyed the lighthouses. And yes, Anderson's communication does sound either tongue-in-cheek or the drool of an idiot. Closing the port to deprive it of supplies? His supplies depended heavily on commerce with Charleston. Close the harbor by destroying the lighthouses? That simply limits commerce to the daylight hours, as the Fox expedition found out.
If Governor Pickens took any of that seriously, then he was the fool. Hostile intent? Poo.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I doubt that Major Anderson and his fifty men posed much of a physical threat to Charleston. His withdrawal to Ft. Sumter IMO was a defensive move, to preserve his command.
Hanny, your post about the leases and purchases is a new one for me. Thanks! I am thinking however(without any research or anything, just speculation) that even if the paperwork and book keeping were immaculate, it would have played out exactly the same way.
As a physical threat to the town of Charleston, it was not designed as such.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Thanks for the heads up on that. As it happened, the Confederates destroyed the lighthouses. And yes, Anderson's communication does sound either tongue-in-cheek or the drool of an idiot. Closing the port to deprive it of supplies? His supplies depended heavily on commerce with Charleston. Close the harbor by destroying the lighthouses? That simply limits commerce to the daylight hours, as the Fox expedition found out.
If Governor Pickens took any of that seriously, then he was the fool. Hostile intent? Poo.
Ole
Ive always believed that Anderson was hoping for orders to surrender, he certainly went out of his way to put his command in an untenable posistion, he quit his post moved without orders to a posistion that was more defensible but paradoxicly more of a threat to the port, and put his command at the mercy of SC good will for food stocks as you you mention.
Intent and capabilitys are probably where the difference lies, i dont think Anderson wanted to initiate the conflict in a mil sense, but his actions could be read in a light that make his intent to increase his capabilitys to harm SC intrest by his movement to Sumpter from his posts, that could be construed as hostile intent, you cant close the port etc, from where he was. Equally, and the one i favour, is that this was to put pressure on obtaining orders to surrender from Washington, more than any percieved hostile intent against SC.
I doubt that Major Anderson and his fifty men posed much of a physical threat to Charleston. His withdrawal to Ft. Sumter IMO was a defensive move, to preserve his command.
Hanny, your post about the leases and purchases is a new one for me. Thanks! I am thinking however(without any research or anything, just speculation) that even if the paperwork and book keeping were immaculate, it would have played out exactly the same way.
Thats just a short hand answer to property ownership, but looking at the original land title grant, the provision of reverting back to SC unless x amount was payed for the different leases that existed, 3 years, 20 years, and the final option to outright ownership is contained in them all, and for a number of different reasons the federal Gov was never able to fullfill them, but thats not unusual by any means.
I concur, both sides were looking to shift the great majority of people to the extreme posistions, by the majority i mean that North and South most agreed that coercion was not allowed as a remedy to the peacfull secessions and no war. By minoritys i mean those in the South who wanted further states to seccede, and in the North those who wanted an arguable reason to use force to restore the Union. Both sides got what they wanted from Sumpter, a hardening and expantion of their sectional intrests.
Yes even if the legal forms were observed, if your a Sov state you simply pass legislation to recind the land title transfer, after you assert your sov right to leave the Union, using International law of Terretorial waters for instance, and bingo!, Sumpters yours again and you still owe the Union a pecuniary intrest in it.
So even if the property laws were exact and perfect, the constitional problem of state Sov would invariably lead to the same end result, just a differnt path would be followed to it.
As a physical threat to the town of Charleston, it was not designed as such.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Pretty dangerous as it turned out, when someone tresspasses onto your property and you tell them to leave and they dont,and you use eventually use force to remove them, and then all his friends come and deall death and destruction to you and yours.
Besides, after learning through USSC Judge Campbell (t think no candid man will read over what I have written, and consider for a moment what is going on at Sumter, but will agree that the equivocating conduct of the Administration, as measured and interpreted in connection with these promises, is the proximate cause of the great calamity.
I have a profound conviction that the telegrams of the 8th of April of General Beauregard, and of the 10th of April of General Walker, the Secretary of War, can be referred to nothing else than their belief that there has been systematic duplicity practiced on them through me. It is under an impressive sense of the weight of this responsibility that I submit to you these things for your explanation.) That Lincoln had ordered an expedition to resuply the Fort (against a legal document between the provCSA and the USA Government that it would not) and refused to meet the peace commisioners, (who were authorised to settle the pecuniary intrest of the Federal posts siezed by the secceding states) the CSA government oreded Sumpters reduction.
Sir: The Government of the Confederate States has hitherto forborne from any hostile demonstration against Fort Sumter, in the hope that the Government of the United States, with a view to the amicable adjustment of all questions between the two Governments, and to avert the calamities of war, would voluntarily evacuate it. There was reason at one time to believe that such would be the course pursued by the Government of the United States; and, under that impression, my Government has refrained from making any demand for the surrender of the fort.
But the Confederate States can no longer delay assuming actual possession of a fortification commanding the entrance of one of their harbors, and necessary to its defense and security.
I am ordered by the Government of the Confederate States to demand the evacuation of Fort Sumter. My aides, Colonel Chesnut and Captain Lee, are authorized to make such demand of you. All proper facilities will be afforded for the removal of yourself and command, together with company arms and property, and all private property, to any post in the United States which you may elect. The flag which you have upheld so long and with so much fortitude, under the most trying circumstances, may be saluted by you on taking it down.
Colonel Chesnut and Captain Lee will, for a reasonable time, await your answer.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
Dear Hanny,
In reference to your post 27, Anderson's logistical situation was not affected by retreating into the harbor. His miitary situation defensively was improved by being somewhat harder to get at, but fifty men could not hold out against several thousand, and I think everyone knew that. The threat of Ft. Sumter to Charleston is a red herring. If the Confederates could have held off for a week or so, Anderson would have been forced to surrender through lack of food, as Anderson himself told the state authorities.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
