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.
...and in 1776 the British Crown held property within the American Colonies.
Irrelevant. The Americans of 1776 were straightforward and declared a revolution rather than trying to create a sham legal case that they actually owned the Royal Governor's house. And the Crown gave up all title to the land with the Treaty of Paris.
Does the state (any state) have the right to approve or disapprove the garrisoning of Federal troops within its borders or along its coastline?
No, the state does not have that right.
OTOH, Jefferson Davis tried to get the states to take over the garrisoning of the coastal defenses while he was Secretary of Defense in the 1850s. He wanted to cut Federal military expenses on the posts and transfer the expense to the states. The states involved refused to do so because they didn't want to take on the expense (or lose the Federal spending in their states). I believe that included South Carolina, indicating a lack of foresight, perhaps.
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.
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...
Actually, there is a title to that piece of land in SC law.
John C. Calhoun had pushed for the building of the fort back in the 1820s. The US started construction in 1828. Then a rather shady character, Major William Laval, surfaced with a supposedly prior claim and sued in 1834.
The Congress got upset at the War Department and launched an investigation into why they had started spending taxpayer money without being sure the title South Carolina was transferring was clear. Work stopped until the mess in SC was cleared up.
It turned out Laval had filed claim in a rather vague manner using a 1791 South Carolina on how the state disposed of vacant land (which most of the state was in those days). His description was so vague it was hard to be sure without a lot of work what it actually covered -- but it covered the "land" under the river where Ft. Sumter was being built. It took a couple of years to get all that sorted out but it ended up with this:
=====
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.
=====
It took some time after that to resolve this mess completely. The South Carolina Attorney General officially registered the US title to the land in 1841, IIRR.
__________________ "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.
Yep... and if we had lost the war, more than likely all the head players would have been hanged for treason.
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." Ben Franklin, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Hard to find anything similar from a Confederate leader when they seceded. The Founding Fathers of the United States knew what they were risking and not shy about standing up to it.
Regards,
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.
What was the purpose of the fort?
...the purpose for which all monies to build and make improvements were appropriated?
__________________ 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."
What was the purpose of the fort?
...the purpose for which all monies to build and make improvements were appropriated?
On the part of the United States government, it would be to help defend the people and territory of the United States. Do you imagine it was something else? If so, what?
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.
When it was determined to build a fort in Charleston Harbor, Charlestown was considered to be an important port of the United States. All ports had Federal fortifications. That Sumter was still under construction was partly explained above by Trice. Another reason is that threat from the Royal Navy had all but disappeared. Which also explains why many of the forts were not garrisoned.
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
There was a building program of harbor fortifications during the early 1800s, including Fort Warren in Boston Harbor, Fort Knox on the Penobscot River in Maine, a rebuilding of Fort Constitution in Portsmouth NH, and several others, including(I believe) fortifications on Alcatraz Island.
These handsome granite forts tended to take forever to build, were often not fully completed, and of course were considered outmoded by the CW. The War Department however hung on to them until after WWII. Some became national parks, but several were turned over to the various states to become state parks, where they are sometimes beautifully maintained, like Ft. Warren, or left to crumble, like Fort Constitution.
These forts were designed to repel a seaborne assault on important American maritime centers(although, Ft. Knox in Maine, opposite tiny Bucksport, seems like pure pork barrel).
An earlier fort, Ft. Independence, I dimly recall, was the center of a controversy between the federal govt and the state of Massachusetts before 1812. Symbol of federal power etc. etc. I'll have to check.
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.
I don't buy that argument for the following reasons:
#1 Since SC gave up all rights of the man-made island to the United States, it was US property. "If" South Carolina could secede, how could they bring federal property with it?
When Mexico or Canada deeded over land to the US, they don't get the land back, simply when they get a new government. Taking back such land without US approval would be an act of war - sort of like firing on the star of the west or the fort itself.
#2 If SC was as confident in that position, for posterity they would have tried it, instead of 1st trying to purchase the island and then taking it by force.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
