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.
The following is the response to the claim I. W. Hayne, South Carolina's Attorney-General, had sent to President Buchanan on January 31, 1861. South Carolina was claiming Fort Sumter by right of eminent domain. Holt was replying to deny/refute that claim.
========
WAR DEPARTMENT,
Washington, February 6, 1861.
Hon. I. W. HAYNE,
Attorney-General of the State of South Carolina:
SIR: The President of the United States has received your letter of the 31st ultimo,(*) and has charged me with the duty of replying thereto. In the communication addressed to the President by Governor Pickens, under date of the 12th of January,(*) and which accompanies yours, now before me, his excellency says:
I have determined to send to you Hon. I. W. Hayne, the attorney-general of the State of South Carolina, and have instructed him to demand the surrender of Fort Sumter, in the harbor of Charleston, to the constituted authorities of the State of South Carolina. The demand I have made of Major Anderson, and which I now make of you, is suggested because of my earnest desire to avoid bloodshed, which a persistence in your attempt to retain the possession of that fort will cause, and which will be unavailing to secure to you that possession, but induce a calamity most deeply to be deplored.
The character of the demand thus authorized to be made appears--under the influence, I presume, of the correspondence with the Senators to which you refer--to have been modified by subsequent instructions of his excellency, dated the 26th, and received by yourself on the 30th of January, in which he says:
If it be so that Fort Sumter is held as property, then as property, the rights, whatever they may be, of the United States can be ascertained; and for the satisfaction of these rights the pledge of the State of South Carolina you are authorized to give.
The full scope and precise purport of your instructions, as thus modified, you have expressed in the following words:
I do not come as a military man to demand the surrender of a fortress, but as the legal officer of the State--its attorney-general--to claim for the State the exercise of its undoubted right of eminent domain, and to pledge the State to make good all injury to the rights of property which arise from the exercise of the claim.
And lest this explicit language should not sufficiently define your position, you add:
The proposition now is that her (South Carolina's) law officer should, under authority of the governor and his council, distinctly pledge the faith of South Carolina to make such compensation in regard to Fort Sumter and its appurtenances and contents, to the full extent of the money value of the property of the United States delivered over to the authorities of South Carolina by your command.
You then adopt his excellency's train of thought upon the subject so far as to suggest that the possession of Fort Sumter by the United States, "if continued long enough, must lead to collision," and that "an attack upon it would scarcely improve it as property, whatever the result, and if captured it would no longer be the subject of account."
The proposal, then, now presented to the President is simply an offer on the part of South Carolina to buy Fort Sumter and contents as property of the United States, sustained by a declaration in effect that if she is not permitted to make the purchase she will seize the fort by force of arms. As the initiation of a negotiation for the transfer of property between friendly governments this proposal impresses the President as having assumed a most unusual form. He has, however, investigated the claim on which it professes to be based, apart from the declaration that accompanies it; and it may be here remarked that much stress has been laid upon the employment of the words "property" and "public property" by the President in his several messages. These are the most comprehensive terms which can be used in such a connection, and surely, when referring to a fort or any other public establishment, they embraced the entire and undivided interest of the Government therein.
The title of the United States to Fort Sumter is complete and incontestible. Were its interest in this property purely Proprietary, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, it might, probably, be subjected to the exercise of the right of eminent domain; but it has also political relations to it, of a much higher and more imposing character than those of mere proprietorship. It has absolute jurisdiction over the fort and the soil on which it stands. This jurisdiction consists in the authority to "exercise exclusive legislation" over the property referred to, and is therefore clearly incompatible with the claim of eminent domain now insisted upon by South Carolina. This authority was not derived from any questionable revolutionary source, but from the peaceful cession of South Carolina herself, acting through her legislature, under a provision of the Constitution of the United States. South Carolina can no more assert the right of eminent domain over Fort Sumter than Maryland can assert it over the District of Columbia. The political and proprietary rights of the United States in either case rest upon precisely the same grounds.
The President is, however, relieved from the necessity of further pursuing this inquiry by the fact that, whatever may be the claim of South Carolina to this fort, he has no constitutional power to cede or surrender it. The property of the United States has been acquired by force of public law, and can only be disposed of under the same solemn sanctions. The President, as the head of the executive branch of the Government only, can no more sell and transfer Fort Sumter to South Carolina than he can sell and convey the Capitol of the United States to Maryland, or to any other State or individual seeking to possess it. His excellency the governor is too familiar with the Constitution of the United States, and with the limitations upon the powers of the Chief Magistrate of the Government it has established, not to appreciate at once the soundness of this legal proposition.
The question of re-enforcing Fort Sumter is so fully disposed of in my letter to Senator Slidell and others, under date of the 22d of January--a copy of which accompanies this--that its discussion will not now be renewed. I then said: "At the present moment it is not deemed necessary to re-enforce Major Anderson, because he makes no such request. Should his safety, however, require re-enforcements, every effort will be made to supply them." I can add nothing to the explicitness of this language, which still applies to the existing status. The right to send forward re-enforcements when, in the judgment of the President, the safety of the garrison requires them rests on the same unquestionable foundation as the right to occupy the fortress itself.
In the letter of Senator Davis and others to yourself, under date of the 15th ultimo, they say: "We, therefore, think it especially due from South Carolina to our States, to say nothing of other slaveholding States, that she should, as far as she can consistently with her honor, avoid initiating hostilities between her and the United States or any other power"; and you now yourself give to the President the gratifying assurance that" South Carolina has every disposition to preserve the public peace "; and, since he is himself sincerely animated by the same desire, it would seem that this common and patriotic object must be of certain attainment.
It is difficult, however, to reconcile with this assurance the declaration on your part that "it is a consideration of her (South Carolina's) own dignity as a sovereign, and the safety of her people, which prompts her to demand that this property should not longer be used as a military post by a Government she no longer acknowledges," and the thought you so constantly present, that this occupation must lead to a collision of arms, and the prevalence of civil war.
Fort Sumter is in itself a military post, and nothing else; and it would seem that not so much the fact as the purpose of its use should give to it a hostile or friendly character. This fortress is now held by the Government of the United States for the same objects for which it has been held from the completion of its construction. These are national and defensive, and were a public enemy now to attempt the capture of Charleston, or the destruction of the commerce of its harbor, the whole force of the batteries of this fortress would be at once exerted for their protection. How the presence of a small garrison, actuated by such a spirit as this, can compromise the dignity or honor of South Carolina, or become a source of irritation to her people, the President is at a loss to understand. The attitude of that garrison, as has been often declared, is neither menacing, nor defiant, nor unfriendly. It is acting under orders to stand strictly on the defensive, and the government and people of South Carolina must well know that they can never receive aught but shelter from its guns, unless, in the absence of all provocation, they should assault it, and seek its destruction. The intent with which this fortress is held by the President is truthfully stated by Senator Davis and others in their letter to yourself of the 15th of January, in which they say, "It is not held with any hostile or unfriendly purpose towards your State, but merely as property of the United States, which the President deems it his duty to protect and preserve."
If the announcement, so repeatedly made, of the President's pacific purposes in continuing the occupation of Fort Sumter until the question shall have been settled by competent authority has failed to impress the government of South Carolina, the forbearing conduct of his administration for the last few months should be received as conclusive evidence of his sincerity; and if this forbearance, in view of the circumstances which have so severely tried it, be not accepted as a satisfactory pledge of the peaceful policy of this administration towards South Carolina, then it may be safely affirmed that neither language nor conduct can possibly furnish one. If, with all the multiplied proofs which exist of the President's anxiety for peace and of the earnestness with which he has pursued it, the authorities of that State shall assault Fort Sumter and peril the lives of the handful of brave and loyal men shut up within its walls, and thus plunge our common country into the horrors of civil war, then upon them, and those they represent, must rest the responsibility.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. HOLT,
Secretary of War.
=====
This would be the official opinion of the US on the matter. It is perhaps significant that Buchanan had the Secretary of War respond instead of the Secretary of State or some other official, but maybe that was only because Fort Sumter was part of his authority at the War Department.
The Federal government points to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution as their authority for acquiring property within a state:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power ...
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
There is an interesting article by Bob Huddleston at http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.htm which details the process and methodolgy by which this was done, using Ft. Sumter specifically as an example.
In that article I mentioned by Bob Huddleston ("Ownership of Fort Sumter") at http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.htm, he describes the early history of the Fort and how rock-solid US ownership was.
The Congress had required that when they built any Federal facility within the boundaries of the state, the government purchased the property (unless it was already in the Public Domain) and the state legislature passed a law agreeing to the acquisition of the property. The states were happy to have government installations, both for the initial spending to construct it and the ongoing payroll from the base or installation.
Secretary of War Calhoun (yes, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina) got the ball rolling on the construction of Fort Sumter in 1827. After construction started, in 1834, a Major Laval tried to exert a claim. Construction stopped and, although Laval's claim seemed worthless, the US government got the South Carolina government to pass the following law:
Committee on Federal Relations In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836
"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution: "Resolved, That this state do cede 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. "Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded. "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session. "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836
"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
Jacob Warly, C. S.
That seems to resolve the issue quite clearly. South Carolina would have had no right of eminent domain here.
This same process was followed for all Federal government installations in Charleston harbor. South Carolina had ceded all rights to Castle Pickney, Fort Moultrie and the Charleston Arsenal as well. Fort Johnson I have seen described as a militia, not a Federal, fort.
The Federal government was using the fort with the intent to inflict injury upon the people of South Carolina- assisting in blockading the port of Charleston and training guns upon the same (with no state of war existing at the time).
This was not the original purpose for which the land was acquired and fort constructed...in fact 180 degrees from it.
Whatever contracts existing between the State of SC and the Federal government (regarding the land and fort) were voided at the moment the fort was used for purposes contrary for which it was built.
The Federal government was using the fort with the intent to inflict injury upon the people of South Carolina- assisting in blockading the port of Charleston and training guns upon the same (with no state of war existing at the time).
This was not the original purpose for which the land was acquired and fort constructed...in fact 180 degrees from it.
Whatever contracts existing between the State of SC and the Federal government (regarding the land and fort) were voided at the moment the fort was used for purposes contrary for which it was built.
Everything you said above appears to be completely wrong. But, perhaps you know things I have not seen yet. I would like to see you justify your position with a timeline and detailed facts. Note the dates of the governor's demand the fort be surrendered, and the state's false claim of eminent domain, then present your case within that timeframe. While you are at it, please give us a count on the number of guns the secessionists were putting into place and pointing at Fort Sumter, plus the armed boats they had patrolling the harborin December and January.
Everything you said above appears to be completely wrong. But, perhaps you know things I have not seen yet.
Was the Federal occupation of Fort Sumter friendly or hostile toward the people of South Carolina?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
I would like to see you justify your position with a timeline and detailed facts. Note the dates of the governor's demand the fort be surrendered
Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
and the state's false claim of eminent domain,
Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
then present your case within that timeframe. While you are at it, please give us a count on the number of guns the secessionists were putting into place and pointing at Fort Sumter,
Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
plus the armed boats they had patrolling the harborin December and January.
Doesn't matter.
~
You are the one who brought up the legality of ownership.
What is stipulated in the transfer of the property?
What conditions are set forth by the State of SC for the use of the property...and those using it?
Can you produce those documents?
>>> Whatever they may say...
...the State of South Carolina NEVER transferred the property (or any other property) to the Federal government with the understanding that it would be used..against..the people of South Carolina.
__________________ 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
Was the Federal occupation of Fort Sumter friendly or hostile toward the people of South Carolina?
Doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter.
Answering questions with questions and ignoring the facts. Well, then I guess you must be lost out there in the darkness somewhere. Let me know when you get back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
You are the one who brought up the legality of ownership.
Yep. OTOH, you haven't said anything at all yet that relates to the legality of the ownership. Do you plan to say something relevant soon?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
What is stipulated in the transfer of the property?
Please note that I have already posted this information for you in an earlier message in this thread: "Resolved, That this state do cede 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, ..."
In short, South Carolina gave up all of their rights and claims to the site (which was under water at low tide anyway) in their desire to have the US government build/maintain a fort there. They did the same with their rights to property for Castle Pinckney, Fort Moultrie, and the Charleston Arsenal in order to get the Federal government to own them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
What conditions are set forth by the State of SC for the use of the property...and those using it?
Again, please note that I have already posted this information for you in an earlier message in this thread: "... 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."
What is it you are imagining?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Can you produce those documents?
Again, please note that I have already posted one of the acts of the South Carolina legislature. Also, earlier in the thread I twice mentioned an article by Bob Huddleston ("Ownership of Fort Sumter") at http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.htm. If you actually go to the URL and read the article, you will discover how to find abundant documentation on the US ownership of the property -- including many other properties seized by secessionists from December of 1860 to April of 1861.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
>>> Whatever they may say... ...the State of South Carolina NEVER transferred the property (or any other property) to the Federal government with the understanding that it would be used..against..the people of South Carolina.
The ownship of Ft. Sumter by the Federal Government is a decided fact in spite of the idea you bring forth that the fort was going to be used against Charleston and South Carolina. This was brought up on another thread years ago and I will attempt to find it and post a link here to this thread, but know that the US owned Ft. Sumter, period.
As for the idea of the fort being used against SC, do you know how many guns were pointed directly at Charleston? Do you know how many time Col. Anderson refrained from firing on Southern forces, even when he was provoked? Do you know the fort was designed primarily to defend Charleston from an attack from the sea and almost all the guns were pointed in that direction?
It didn't sell then, it don't sell now, or why do you suppose all those millions of men in the North got so riled up at the firing on the fort?
Present a case or leave it be. 'Doesn't matter' means 'I don't care about the facts because I know I'm right,' and that don't buy nothing here on this board or on this thread.
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
I would add that, until SC/Charleston decided they wanted the forts back, the garrisons were purchasing their provisions in town, the men took leave in town, officers attended parties in town. There was never a threat. The problem the Confederacy had with Sumter is that it couldn't just take it like it had taken all but a few Federal installations.
By the way, Tim, much appreciated the links you provided.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Ownership of Ft. Sumter 
Linear Mode
