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.
A query has been nagging me for a while -- one which can certainly be answered more quickly by other members than by myself and limited search skills.
From the side of "Northern duplicity made us do it," one statement pops up now and then: reference to a solemn pact or agreement between the US Government and Governor Pickens or the CSA or both that was violated when Anderson moved from Moultrie to Sumter.
Does anyone have an explanation or reference to exactly what these pacts said?
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
Before SC seceded Buchanan met with some SC Congressmen, who were seeking a pledge that he would not reinforce or in any way change the military situation at Charleston pending anticipated negotiations between that state and the Federal Gov't. In return, SC promised not to attack the fort.
Buchanan declined to sign any such agreement, but, verbally, assured the Congressment that he did not intend to reinforce the forts under the present circumstances. The only controvery here, is whether the President also, said that they would be informed if he changed his policy; the Congressmen understood that Buchanan made such an assurance. Buchanan did not have that understanding.
Later, after Buchanan's failed resupply attempt and the Star of the West incident Maj. Anderson and the Govenor of SC agreed not to resort to arms until the issue of Sumpter's ownership was resolved,then being negotiated in Washington D.C. Those negotiations failed, thus ending the "truce" between Anderson and the governor, but Buchanan, on his own responsibility, continued to preserve the status quo, while informing Anderson to act on the defensive and avoid conflict.
At the time Lincoln took office, there were no specific agreements or 'Truce's' extant.
During this time period (at least) the southerners involved in the matter, were either naive or duplicitous (or both maybe) in their claims, concerning this particular matter.
At the time Lincoln took office, there were no specific agreements or 'Truce's' extant. During this time period (at least) the southerners involved in the matter, were either naive or duplicitous (or both maybe) in their claims, concerning this particular matter.
Thanks for the quick comeback OD. It is understood that Lincoln was not bound by any agreement Buchanan made.
So there is nothing in writing except someone's impression of what was said? This is the "solemn pact"? How did the "Star of the West" play off against this agreement?
Seems that Anderson's move wouldn't have "changed the military situation," but that one did set off a tempest. Funny, I don't see much outrage over the "Star" incident. Then again, I rarely see reference to that "solemn pact" either. Most of the outrage seems to stem from Anderson's move, which doesn't strike me as all that important. I'd have thought breaking an agreement, verbal or not, would have been the more serious infraction.
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
Apparently, when Buchanan decided to reinforce Ft Sumter, it worked out that almost everyone knew of it except Maj. Anderson. The first he knew of it was, when the reinforcing ships suddenly appeared and SC batteries were firing upon the supply ship Star of the West. Without specific knowledge or orders, Anderson decided not to fire in support of the ship.
I believe that there was 'great' commotion among the SC officials, civilians and militia; not to mention Maj. Anderson and his men.
Govenor Pickens and Maj. Anderson agreed, after all the facts were established, that to prevent a similar incident precipitating a war, they would not resort to arms until the ongoing negotiations over the ownership of Ft. Sumter, in Washington D.C. was completed. As noted, when the negotiations ended, the agreed upon truce also ended and only Buchanan's insisting on dumping the crisis in Lincoln's lap, if possible, delayed the inevitable.
While you're on Sumter, what was the legal status of the island on which the fort was located? Was it in fact owned by the federal government? If so, I assume there is an act somewhere by which the federal government took title to it. Has anyone tracked this down?
A bit more controversially, perhaps, may I ask how Sumter differs from Gitmo? I believe the pre-Castro Cuban government leased the grounds on which Gitmo is located to the US via a long-term (99 yr?) lease. Presumably, after Castro seized power, the US took the position that a mere change of government did not, under international law, entitle a country to repudiate an otherwise valid transaction.
By analogy, this suggests that, even assuming that South Carolina had the right to secede (into which topic I hope to avoid descending here), the establishment of a new government did not void the prior transfer.
One more: did post-secession Virginia assert that it was entitled to recover that portion of the District Columbia that it had transferred to federal government?
I did a little digging. I can't vouch for the article, but the site linked below asserts that the South Carolina transferred all title to the property in 1836:
"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."
For the devotees of Saint History, the ownership of Ft. Sumter and the man-made island (constructed with Federal funds) is clear. For the devotees of the Saints Kennedy, the US was behind on payments, had defaulted on the contractual obligations and, therefore, ownership of the island was with South Carolina and the Feds were trespassing. The upshot, of course, is that a foreign power was occupying South Carolina land and lent justification to the attempted ouster.
The side-bar to the fact of a clear and present danger in the Charleston Harbor, is the idea that Anderson's move and Buchanan's and Lincoln's attempts to resupply the garrison violated at least one if not two solemn "pacts" or agreements between SC officials and President Buchanan.
I was looking for specifics on those or that, for which OD provided a welcome thumbnail description. If, as he contends, there is no record, then there could be no solemn agreement -- the pacts can be disregarded and attention shifted to the ramifications of Anderson's move.
To make a short observation longer, Confederate justification for the attack is built on a chain of Federal provocations, the first link of which is SC ownership of the fort, the second is violation of the pact(s), Anderson's move is the third, etc. I'm simply trying to sort the events and get an objective view of the facts.
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 had always assumed SC was claiming ALL property owned or occupied by Federal Installations or Personnel, solely by right of their being free and independent states no longer under the laws of the US Gov't.
I have recently seen some claims that part of the SC claims of ownership of Ft. Sumter, rested on a claim that the Federal Gov't was in arrears in payment for the property on which Ft. Sumter was located.
On another board, a writer posted a Letter from J. Holt, the Secretary of War, answering for President Buchanan, SC's claims on the Ft. In that letter Secy Holt does not seem to mention any claims based on non payment of the sale price. In fact, he argues from the assumption that "The title of the United States to Fort Sumter is complete and incontestable."
Even IF such a claim had a modicum of validity, the disposal of Any Federal Propety was still, beyond the purview of the President of the United States (or the Sec'y of War) and since Buchanan (and later, Lincoln) did not agree that SC was, in fact, out of the Union, there was no basis for negotiation on the ownership of any contested Federal properties, except through the courts or the Congress of the United States of America.
Thanks, OD. Guess I've been guilty of actually looking for a bit of truth in the Lost Cause Talking Points Memo.
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 did a little digging. I can't vouch for the article, but the site linked below asserts that the South Carolina transferred all title to the property in 1836:
"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."
I see you found the Bob Huddleston article online. That is probably as good as you will find on the Web. In related fashion, the National Park Service says this on their Ft. Sumter site(http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online...h/12/hh12a.htm):
"It was not until January 1841 that work was resumed on the site of Fort Sumter. Laval's claim was invalidated by the State attorney general under act of the South Carolina Legislature, December 20, 1837. But the harbor issue remained and was complicated still further by a memorial presented to the legislature by James C. Holmes, Charleston lawyer, on that same date. Not before November 22, 1841, was the Federal Government's title to 125 acres of harbor "land" recorded in the office of the Secretary of State of South Carolina."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Opening Moves 
Linear Mode
