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.
I agree with you michiganmoon. They had deeded over that land to the Federal government, and it was therefore no longer under state authority. The state couldn't tax it, they could not say what could be built on it, they had not control over it whatsoever. Seceding for the Union did not mean they get it back. They had already given it up. That was United States land. Too bad SC.
__________________ "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
#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?.
Well basically what you're saying is that SC would secede (and again we're assuming its legal) and that every piece of property which happened to be owned by the US Government would become a tiny enclave or exclave of the USA. That is because title to property is derived from the state, still is to this day. It would simply be a piece of property that happened to be owned by the Feds but still within SC.
In theory, SC could use its eminent domain power to take the land and issue just compensation (clearly Ft. Sumter is a public use).
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
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..
Its really apples and oranges. There is no boundary change here, there is a big difference between an international boundary delineating two different areas of sovereignity and property ownership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
#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.
Its only applicable if Feds are willing to recognize secession, I even prefaced the my previous post with the caveat that we're assuming that SC's secession has led to the establishment of a de jure indpendent republic.
Well basically what you're saying is that SC would secede (and again we're assuming its legal) and that every piece of property which happened to be owned by the US Government would become a tiny enclave or exclave of the USA. That is because title to property is derived from the state, still is to this day. It would simply be a piece of property that happened to be owned by the Feds but still within SC.
In theory, SC could use its eminent domain power to take the land and issue just compensation (clearly Ft. Sumter is a public use).
...
Its only applicable if Feds are willing to recognize secession, I even prefaced the my previous post with the caveat that we're assuming that SC's secession has led to the establishment of a de jure indpendent republic.
Like many legal arguments on esoteric subjects, what happens if a unilateral "right of secession" is found to exist gets pretty odd, with even more than the usual amount of straining at gnats and swallowing of camels.
For example, South Carolina had (like, I believe, all of the original 13 colonies/states) modified their own state Constitution to make US law superior to state law in many situations. It has been a long time since I saw a reference to this, but IIRR it was done under the original Articles of Confederation and may have been done again under the Constitution. This is in addition to the clause in the US Constitution giving the Supreme Court original and/or appellate jurisdiction in such cases. In effect, the state of South Carolina -- and the other states -- had long since agreed that in any such case or controversy it was the United States Supreme Court that would decide the issue.
So, assuming South Carolina wants to try to exercise a right of eminent domain on this land, it will be the US Supreme Court that has the final word on the matter. Assuming, of course, that South Carolina wishes to proceed in a legal and peaceful manner.
I also do not see where there is ever anything approaching a serious offer to actually purchase the property involved from South Carolina (or any other seceding states) before they attempt to seize it. I can't even see where South Carolina or any other state attempted an eminent domain action in their own courts before attempting to seize a piece of property by military force. Can anyone?
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.
Well basically what you're saying is that SC would secede (and again we're assuming its legal) and that every piece of property which happened to be owned by the US Government would become a tiny enclave or exclave of the USA. That is because title to property is derived from the state, still is to this day. It would simply be a piece of property that happened to be owned by the Feds but still within SC.
I agree that seems pretty bizarre. However, it also seems to me that this is pretty much how foreign embassies in any country are treated under international law, and how places like Guantanamo, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, West Berlin, the Canal Zone, etc. have been treated over the recent period of history.
I am also not entirely sure title is always treated as you describe here. There seem to me to be differences in the way the US Government retained title to Federal lands in creating new states, and in the Inland Waterways acts. I have no real clue how that might apply to the situation in 1860 in South Carolina; just saying it doesn't always seem 100% to my uneducated eye.
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.
Its really apples and oranges. There is no boundary change here, there is a big difference between an international boundary delineating two different areas of sovereignity and property ownership.
Hmm. Just for the fun of it, I believe it could be argued that South Carolina had already given up not only title to but sovereignity over Fort Sumter. I have in mind this part of the 1836 action of the South Carolina legislature:
"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.
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.
Hmm. Just for the fun of it, I believe it could be argued that South Carolina had already given up not only title to but sovereignity over Fort Sumter. I have in mind this part of the 1836 action of the South Carolina legislature:
"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.
Regards,
Tim
Don't think so.
District of Columbia...Yes.
Fort Sumter...Fort Bragg, Fort Hood, etc...No.
__________________ 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."
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
Yes, correct...and what was the purpose of Major Anderson and garrison in occupying the fort?
__________________ 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."
Battalion, I think we've been down this road before, on previous threads, but the lead up to the firing on Ft. Sumter is always an interesting topic.
Let me summarize the points made before, and I hope it can lead to a informative discussion.
1. Maj. Anderson and the garrison were in Charleston at Ft. Moultrie as part of the Federal gov't program of defending the USA.
2. Anderson transferred his men to Sumter in the harbor because it was more easily defended than Sumter. Anderson was concerned that secessionists would rush Ft. Moultrie. Anderson's move can be seen, not as an aggressive tactic, but a withdrawal.
3. Anderson's men and Ft. Sumter assumed intense symbolic importance. For Lincoln, it was "a line in the sand" to surrender the fort was to accept secession. For Davis and the South Carolineans, to have a federal post in the heart of the secessionist movement also meant secession was a still in doubt. And its important to remember, secession was new, and significant portions of the South were still dubious.
4. Here is where I think we part company, but I sure I'm right. Ft. Sumter looks like a military contest, but it isn't, its a symbolic and political contest. It's like the Berlin Airlift or Cuba Missile Crisis, lots of military hardware, and intense interest on all sides.
a. Sumter could not be held, if the mainland decided it should not be held. What island fortress in the modern age, in a similar situation could have? If Anderson started shooting, then the reduction of the fort would have played out as it did, only with Anderson at fault.
b. The Union relieving fleet was tasked with maintaining the status quo at Sumter, putting in more men and supplies, so that Sumter could continue to be held. If SC had chosen, and let a unarmed steamer in to drop off supplies, the stand off could have continued indefinitely. If the supply ship had been fired on, the plan was to escort it in, shooting back at the batteries, and land the supplies, then withdraw. Militarily, I don't think that would have worked.
c. The onus on starting the shooting was on the South, unless it could somehow tolerate a US force in Charleston harbor. Davis weighed his options and decided that it would be more advantageous, politically, to reduce the fort.
Battalion, I think we've been down this road before, on previous threads, but the lead up to the firing on Ft. Sumter is always an interesting topic.
Let me summarize the points made before, and I hope it can lead to a informative discussion.
1. Maj. Anderson and the garrison were in Charleston at Ft. Moultrie as part of the Federal gov't program of defending the USA.
2. Anderson transferred his men to Sumter in the harbor because it was more easily defended than Sumter. Anderson was concerned that secessionists would rush Ft. Moultrie. Anderson's move can be seen, not as an aggressive tactic, but a withdrawal.
3. Anderson's men and Ft. Sumter assumed intense symbolic importance. For Lincoln, it was "a line in the sand" to surrender the fort was to accept secession. For Davis and the South Carolineans, to have a federal post in the heart of the secessionist movement also meant secession was a still in doubt. And its important to remember, secession was new, and significant portions of the South were still dubious.
4. Here is where I think we part company, but I sure I'm right. Ft. Sumter looks like a military contest, but it isn't, its a symbolic and political contest. It's like the Berlin Airlift or Cuba Missile Crisis, lots of military hardware, and intense interest on all sides.
a. Sumter could not be held, if the mainland decided it should not be held. What island fortress in the modern age, in a similar situation could have? If Anderson started shooting, then the reduction of the fort would have played out as it did, only with Anderson at fault.
b. The Union relieving fleet was tasked with maintaining the status quo at Sumter, putting in more men and supplies, so that Sumter could continue to be held. If SC had chosen, and let a unarmed steamer in to drop off supplies, the stand off could have continued indefinitely. If the supply ship had been fired on, the plan was to escort it in, shooting back at the batteries, and land the supplies, then withdraw. Militarily, I don't think that would have worked.
c. The onus on starting the shooting was on the South, unless it could somehow tolerate a US force in Charleston harbor. Davis weighed his options and decided that it would be more advantageous, politically, to reduce the fort.
...but the thread is about ownership...not politics and symbolism.
Reversio.
__________________ 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."
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Yes, correct...and what was the purpose of Major Anderson and garrison in occupying the fort?
Come, now. Major Anderson specifically wrote his reasoning down and submitted it to his superiors. It is known, and you have seen it before. It is available in the Official Records, which you yourself have shown you know how to access when you think it suits your purpose. That being the case, what is your purpose in asking me to explain it to you now? Why not just show us what you already know about?
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.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
