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.
JMan has about summed up the quandary Lincoln was in. If he believed in anything, it was the Constitution as he saw it. (OK, dammit, he also believed that he could break a piece of it to save all of it.) So he had a problem with what was a blockade and what was "closing" a port.
Lincoln's presidency was OJT at its highest point. He had nothing going for him outside his belief in the constitution. The rest was considered invention. After the initial turmoil, he settled in, brought together some really odd people, and hammered together a functional organization that prosecuted a nasty war successfully.
Now I forget where I was going. Whatever.
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
JMan has about summed up the quandary Lincoln was in. If he believed in anything, it was the Constitution as he saw it. (OK, dammit, he also believed that he could break a piece of it to save all of it.) So he had a problem with what was a blockade and what was "closing" a port.
Lincoln's presidency was OJT at its highest point. He had nothing going for him outside his belief in the constitution. The rest was considered invention. After the initial turmoil, he settled in, brought together some really odd people, and hammered together a functional organization that prosecuted a nasty war successfully.
Now I forget where I was going. Whatever.
ole
Where you are going may not be as important as where you've been? The trick is to keep moving.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
Apparently that was part of the problem. Remember also that the good citizens of South Carolina had helped build and pay for the fort that was within their sovereign territory? They could have layed claim to at least an interest in the place. Apparently they were interested enough to start a war.
The South Carolina legislature had already ceded ownership of Fort Sumter to the United States for all time.
As far as I understand it, since South Carolina had already seceded at the time of the firing upon Star of West & Ft Sumter, Pres. Lincoln had several justifiable grounds on which to respond with military force.
*Presumably among the supplies was mail destined to the Ft Sumter Garrision. Interruption of the mail was and is still a federal crime.
The 1824 Gibbons Vs. Ogden case would provide ample cause under interstate trade grounds.
Destruction of federal property- Since the Star of the West was in the service of the Federal Government at the time of its being damaged.
Treason- attacking the federal troops under Major Anderson was tantamount to an open revolt against the legitimate govt of the US.
Any one of these grounds would have served, it was the last that finally did it.
__________________ Great-Great Grand Nephew of George H. Pfau, 4th NJ Vol Infantry
The South Carolina legislature had already ceded ownership of Fort Sumter to the United States for all time.
Regards,
Cash
...and in 1776 the British Crown held property within the American Colonies.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
As far as I understand it, since South Carolina had already seceded at the time of the firing upon Star of West & Ft Sumter, Pres. Lincoln had several justifiable grounds on which to respond with military force.
*Presumably among the supplies was mail destined to the Ft Sumter Garrision. Interruption of the mail was and is still a federal crime.
The 1824 Gibbons Vs. Ogden case would provide ample cause under interstate trade grounds.
Destruction of federal property- Since the Star of the West was in the service of the Federal Government at the time of its being damaged.
Treason- attacking the federal troops under Major Anderson was tantamount to an open revolt against the legitimate govt of the US.
Any one of these grounds would have served, it was the last that finally did it.
Does the state (any state) have the right to approve or disapprove the garrisoning of Federal troops within its borders or along its coastline?
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
...and in 1776 the British Crown held property within the American Colonies.
Yep... and if we had lost the war, more than likely all the head players would have been hanged for treason.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
Does the state (any state) have the right to approve or disapprove the garrisoning of Federal troops within its borders or along its coastline?
The Constitution does not give the states that power. It us up to the Congress of the United States to decide issues of military matters, as stated in Article 1, section 8. Now Congress will have to vote on these appropriations and the like, so the representatives of that state have a say, meaning that state has had its say in the matter. But because the states have united under one government with jurisdiction over the states, the vote of Congress as a whole is what counts. The representatives of said state, if they do not agree, have the ability to try and persuade the other representatives to vote against the proposed legislation. But the states have no say according to the Constitution.
And just to make it clear from the get go, the 3rd Amendment does not apply here. This amendment only applies to the quartering of troops, in a private home, in times of peace, without the owners consent.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
Does the state (any state) have the right to approve or disapprove the garrisoning of Federal troops within its borders or along its coastline?
None. Federal government provides for the common defense.
You guys are missing the point on Sumter though. Property titles are derived from the sovereign - common law rule. In the US that is, and actually still is, the state, ie. if you own a piece of Florida real estate, ultimately if you go back far enough you will find a deed from the State of Florida. (Your first deed may be from the Federal Government depending on the state, but state governments nevertheless control the disposition of real estate in their borders).
In the case of South Carolina, ultimately you could trace the deeds back to colonial charters, etc. and in the case of Sumter, you probably won't find a deed since it was created by fill.
Nevertheless, assuming arguendo, that secession is legal, and South Carolina becomes a de jure independent state, South Carolina could condemn the property and tender just compensation, BUT assuming that South Carolina simply remained in the Union, they wouldn't be able to use eminent domain over a Federal installation.
Fort Sumter is the line in the sand. By resupplying Fort Sumter, Lincoln is telling SC that its secession has not been recognized by the Feds...
Good point CW. I also should point out that assuming secession is legal as the South claimed, they can no longer claim the Constitution as their basis. They have formed a country of their own, and therefore US law doesn't apply to them. Before they had seceded, they had ceded that property, the island on which the fort had been built, to the Federal Government. Therefore, it no longer belonged to the state, but the Federal Gov't and Congress was in charge, not the state legislature in SC. The states secession does not mean that they get all federal property back. It remains the property of the United States.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
