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 problem concerning Fort Sumter was; that it was a US Government fort that was occupied.
It was on state soil however; the problem is/was; the legal rights to access the fort when it became an island per se. In property law; if you bought a house that existed before you bought it; say on a farm and the farm was broken up into patches; suddenly--you have no road or way to get there; without trespassing on someone else's property. So, that was the problem. You have a right to access your house but, the legal problem--how to do so without violating other's rights?
Then on top of that; having given the US Government permission to have a fort by agreement in the past and past administration; then suddenly when secession rears its head; the state that Ft. Sumter sat upon said; in affect -- "We declare Ft Sumter ours because its on our soil." Problem is/was -- it was 'gifted'/'given'/appropriated for the national defense--by that state to the US Government a patch of land for the fort and it would be 'fairly reasonably' self contained. So, as I see it - the state gave the land to the US Government to build Ft. Sumter and then a generation or so later-they want it back -- ok; so would you give a gift given by others in an earlier and more friendly time? Or, give it back without compensation? Well, the state didn't want to compensate the US Government--they wanted to seize it. And, seized it they did--which would be, to me--no different from snatching a gift of times past; now my property due to being a gift; is being stolen. Or, no different if I gave you a gift and months later (to be fast here); demand it back and if you don't give it back--I take it back; no matter how much you protest and or ignore your request for equal value to replace the snatched item.
Where it should have gone; was to court. The ownership rights to Ft. Sumter should have gone there first; to establish ownership, compensation and whatever loose ends there were.
Personally, I don't think it was a Southern/Northern political issue but, entirely legal. Rights of the US Government to operate the fort, to which was there and a state who wants it back.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
M. E. Wolf,
I must say your discussion intrigued me. ...and you do have good points. Access was a dimension I had not actually considered.
I will say that I doubt that the US honored any of the property rights held previously by the British. We certainly didn't re-imburse them for any of their losses in that regard.
I not sure that it is really relievant for me to bring up the Revolutionery War in this discussion, but it did involve secession, revolution, or something to that effect. And there were certainly property rights issues involved.
Guess I suspect that secession is so outragious as to say, we are not going to play by your rules anymore.
__________________ Don
******************* "We Can, We Will" Website:http://www.myspace.com/dhpatrick Member of: American Legion, VFW, SCV Served with: 1st Sqdn, 9th US Cav Regt * 4th Sqdn, 9th US Cav Regt * V US Corps Ancestors with:
2d Miss Inf Regt * 2d Miss Inf State Regt * 26th Miss Inf Regt
32d Miss Inf Regt * 50th Ala Inf Regt * 58th Ala Inf Regt
8th Ga Inf Regt * 40th Ga Inf Regt * 4th Ark Inf Regt
3d Regt Arizona Bde (Tx State)
Spain legally gave Gibraltar to Britain. The British owned Gibraltar -- and still do. It doesn't matter that Spain would like it back, the British still own it.
South Carolina legally gave the spot where Fort Sumter stands to the United States. The United States owned it, under both US and South Carolina law. It doesn't matter that South Carolina would like it back, the United States still own it.
If South Carolina tries to seize it, they are acting illegally, if they are still part of the United States. If they are, somehow, an independent nation, this is an act of war. Those are the only choices.
Tim
Tim
On a level playing field and in the pure legal sense you are correct.
Secession is a way of telling the North, the South is no longer going to honor their previous agreements. ...in affect all bets are off. Consider, can your think of any agreement the South would have honored after secession - less it was in their vested interest?
On the other hand, the North did not want to honor the secession. In that belief, did they have every right to attempt to hold Fort Sumter - absolutely.
__________________ Don
******************* "We Can, We Will" Website:http://www.myspace.com/dhpatrick Member of: American Legion, VFW, SCV Served with: 1st Sqdn, 9th US Cav Regt * 4th Sqdn, 9th US Cav Regt * V US Corps Ancestors with:
2d Miss Inf Regt * 2d Miss Inf State Regt * 26th Miss Inf Regt
32d Miss Inf Regt * 50th Ala Inf Regt * 58th Ala Inf Regt
8th Ga Inf Regt * 40th Ga Inf Regt * 4th Ark Inf Regt
3d Regt Arizona Bde (Tx State)
As to Wolf's point about access, the common law recognizes an implied easement (or right) of access to property. If I deed to you the front half of my land (the part along the road) and keep the back half but forget to keep a little strip out to the road, I have an implied access easement which allows me to drive on your land to reach mine.
An international analogy would be West Berlin. The Soviets tried to shut off access to the city and force its evacuation by cutting off road and rail access. The United States claimed the right of overflight of East German territory to supply the city and said it would be an act of war to prevent the overflights necessary to supply the city.
If South Carolina was still part of the United States, they had no right to stop Federal resupply efforts. If South Carolina indeed seceeded and became an independent nation, then they committed an act of war by stopping access to United States Territory (which the fort was).
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
I must say your discussion intrigued me. ...and you do have good points. Access was a dimension I had not actually considered.
I will say that I doubt that the US honored any of the property rights held previously by the British. We certainly didn't re-imburse them for any of their losses in that regard.
Beyond any doubt, the American Revolution was an act of illegal rebellion under British law. The lives of all those in rebellion against their rightful King was forfeit, should the King's government so choose -- unless, of course, the Rebels won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHPatrick
I not sure that it is really relievant for me to bring up the Revolutionery War in this discussion, but it did involve secession, revolution, or something to that effect. And there were certainly property rights issues involved.
Not "secession" as "the South" claimed it in 1860, which was a supposed legal right. If "natural right of revolution" is supposedly beyond the law, emanating from God, and comes down to trial by combat determining which side is in the right. As R. E. Lee said after the Civil War, Union victory determined that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHPatrick
Guess I suspect that secession is so outragious as to say, we are not going to play by your rules anymore.
Inaccurate. It was not "your rules", it was the rules everyone had agreed to that "the South" decided not to play by. Essentially, they decided they wanted to break the agreement, and claimed they had every legal right to do so -- when that was not established.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
An important point was made a few pages back: that of symbolism. South Carolina and other seceding states could not truly appear soverign on the world stage with Federal property within its borders. Conversely, the U.S. would look rather effete on the world stage if it simply ceded the forts on demand of a dissident minority.
Guantanamo, although too long after the war to be considered a precedent, is a valid analogy in that it was arranged in accordance with international practice as it was understood well before the USCW.
So we have an internationally significant symbol feeding the contention; and we have a legal factor which ought to have been hashed out in the courts before secession.
Sending commissioners to Buchanan with the intention of buying back the fort and compensating the government for the property therein was patently naive: Buchanan could not negotiate in lieu of the Congress.
The proper way to secede would have been to work through Congress for an agreement to allow it and cede possession of the forts in Charleston's harbor. Again, symbolic haste interfered with reason: the secessions must take place before the Black Republican was inaugurated.
Although the slavocrats might have had some legitimate fears for their status quo, they certainly misfired in their actions.
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
On a level playing field and in the pure legal sense you are correct.
Obviously. It is straight fact. But the secessionists maintained the law did not apply to their situation -- while claiming they were only exercising their legal rights. They also attacked the United States first -- and claimed the United States was the aggressor. Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHPatrick
Secession is a way of telling the North, the South is no longer going to honor their previous agreements. ...in affect all bets are off. Consider, can your think of any agreement the South would have honored after secession - less it was in their vested interest?
IOW, you agree that "the South" was acting illegally and was the aggressor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHPatrick
On the other hand, the North did not want to honor the secession.
Why would they "honor" a theoretical claim to a highly-debated unilateral "right of secession" they had never agreed to in the first place? Why would they submit to being attacked and robbed without protest?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHPatrick
In that belief, did they have every right to attempt to hold Fort Sumter - absolutely.
They don't have to give it to the highwayman with the gun? What a concept -- but entirely against what "the South" claimed.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
I will say that I doubt that the US honored any of the property rights held previously by the British. We certainly didn't re-imburse them for any of their losses in that regard.
I not sure that it is really relievant for me to bring up the Revolutionery War in this discussion, but it did involve secession, revolution, or something to that effect. And there were certainly property rights issues involved.
In 1783 in the Treaty of Paris that recognized US independence Great Britain ceeded all land between the Ohio River, the Mississippi River, and the Great Lakes to the US. It was the British who illegally maintained forts in US territory, engaged in a profitable and illegal fur trade on US territory, and armed Indians while encouraging them to raid US settlements. So what were the British property rights that the US failed to honor?
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
An important point was made a few pages back: that of symbolism. South Carolina and other seceding states could not truly appear soverign on the world stage with Federal property within its borders. Conversely, the U.S. would look rather effete on the world stage if it simply ceded the forts on demand of a dissident minority.
Symbolism can be powerful, and it is easy to see the point you are making here. This is the posturing and brinkmanship of politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
Guantanamo, although too long after the war to be considered a precedent, is a valid analogy in that it was arranged in accordance with international practice as it was understood well before the USCW.
Agreed. Gibraltar is a better precedent, but the situation of an enclave within another country has lots of roots. Hong Kong and Macao are also later than the Civil War, but show the practice was common enough in the world -- and we can find lots of places around the world where British-French-Portuguese-etc. maintained footholds well before the Civil War.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
So we have an internationally significant symbol feeding the contention; and we have a legal factor which ought to have been hashed out in the courts before secession.
Sending commissioners to Buchanan with the intention of buying back the fort and compensating the government for the property therein was patently naive: Buchanan could not negotiate in lieu of the Congress.
The proper way to secede would have been to work through Congress for an agreement to allow it and cede possession of the forts in Charleston's harbor. Again, symbolic haste interfered with reason: the secessions must take place before the Black Republican was inaugurated.
Although the slavocrats might have had some legitimate fears for their status quo, they certainly misfired in their actions.
Both Lincoln and Buchanan believed they did not have the legal power to recognize secession, and thus could not legally give up any territory. Congress might have had that power -- which makes it clear how silly it was for the Southerners to withdraw from Congress before the deal was done.
I think there was more than symbolism involved on the haste to secede before Lincoln came to office. Waiting risked letting "secession fever" settle down. People migh realize that Lincoln wasn't such a threat, and that things could be worked out within the Union, if the extremists let Lincoln have six months or a year in office.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
We can find plenty of examples of foreign toeholds in a country's territory. But the reality of the country was not in question, as it was in 1861. If Lincoln had said "boys, secede, it's fine with me, but I want to keep Ft. Sumter." most secessionists would have said "hell, yes!" to that deal.
But what Lincoln was saying is: "secession isn't going to happen. The federal government will not relinquish its authority over all the US. Starting with Ft. Sumter."
At the same time, the middle Southern states(especially VA) were wavering. Davis was leading an experiment. He thinks: "If we push at Charleston, Lincoln will push back. And the upper South will have a choice: shoot at Southerners or shoot at Yankees." He was correct that enough, if not all, would prefer to shoot at Yankees. So he gets most of what he wants, and a viable nation, if they could keep it.
He also overtly starts the shooting, and the indifference in the North vanishes. It would have anyway(preserving the Union was a goal not solely dependent on firing on Sumter), but Davis pulled a Pearl Harbor. An initial victory with long term consequences.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
