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.
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.
The word 'cede' helps you, the clause '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' obviously should be interpreted that SC's inherent police power is still in effect.
You can make a comparison between Sumter and Ellis Island though. Clearly Ellis Island is a Federal installation, but still part of NY (until NJ went through the trouble of filing a case to get portions of it back!)
But you're correct, its a moot point, clearly esoteric; the true importance of Sumter is the symbolism.....
...but the thread is about ownership...not politics and symbolism.
Reversio.
So, using your own logic and approach, Major Anderson's motivation in moving from Fort Moultrie (which the US government owned) to Fort Sumter (which the US government owned) is irrelevant and immaterial to the discussion. Yet you still introduced it into the discussion. Why did you do that? Why object to something matthew mckeon says that is only a response to what you started?
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.
The word 'cede' helps you, the clause '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' obviously should be interpreted that SC's inherent police power is still in effect.
That seems to be an exception to allow South Carolina police to enter Federal property to seize fugitives, one of the very few the Federal Government ever allows in accepting property. SC would be unable, for example, to pass ordinary laws affecting Fort Sumter (such as traffic, sanitation, etc.)
__________________ "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.">>>
No that is not what I am saying. Not necessarily every building like a post office would stay in US control if secession were legal. The land that Fort Sumter was on, was US soil. US Soil. SC gave up all rights to that soil to the US federal government. There is a huge difference between SC giving up all rights to soil and having the US federal government build a post office.
<<<"In theory, SC could use its eminent domain power to take the land and issue just compensation (clearly Ft. Sumter is a public use).">>>
No. You can't eminent domain another countries soil. You can purchase it, work out a treaty, you can take it by conquest...but you can't eminent domain another sovereign nation's soil. Fort Sumter was US soil.
<<<"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.">>>
No there is a boundry change when SC secedes. SC gave up all rights to the island and it was then US federal land...US soil.
...
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.
I would be essentially in agreement with your first three points. My only difference here is on the viability of Ft. Sumter in certain situations. It is a bit of a quibble, but it goes to what SC and the Confederacy feared, and we should mention it to understand their motivation.
A completely finished, armed, equipped and supplied Ft. Sumter with a full garrison of Federal troops is a completely different matter. Such a post, if it chose to do so, could last for months (longer if it could be resupplied) if it acted aggressively towards the preparations to besiege and reduce it before they were completed. Of course, this is not the situation that existed, and the US made no particular effort to create and act from such a situation, nor to threaten firing on the South Carolina forces that were preparing to assault them.
Imagining such a post, we can see no ship could exist or move within the harbor without their permission, and the city itself would be hostage to their power. This is particularly true if Castle Pinckney could also be held and garrisoned.
This, then, is what the secessionists feared. But we see no real evidence that the US intended any such action -- although they certainly intended to hold the Fort, and to resupply it. The rest may be seen as implied or inferred from the very existence of the fort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew mckeon
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.
Major Anderson thought any attempt to force the resupply would have been a disaster. The leader of the expedition, Fox, thought he could make it work. Different perspectives from Navy and Army commanders might be the cause of the difference of opinion. It was very far from a sure thing if Fox had tried it. But the Fort was already under attack, and he never did try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew mckeon
...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.
Essentially true, I think. Fox would sail in. The Confederates would fire on him, or not. Everything would follow from that.
BTW, while Lincoln's orders are clear that the fort would not be reinforced if the resupply was allowed, there has always been a suspicion Fox might have tried to land men and equipment even if the rebels allowed him to reprovision the fort. He seems the sort who might have gone against his orders to accomplish such a thing, giving the government an advantage and not caring where the chips of his action landed.
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.
So, using your own logic and approach, Major Anderson's motivation in moving from Fort Moultrie (which the US government owned) to Fort Sumter (which the US government owned) is irrelevant and immaterial to the discussion. Yet you still introduced it into the discussion. Why did you do that? Why object to something matthew mckeon says that is only a response to what you started?
Tim
Well according to David Detzer's book Allegiance, Anderson moved out of fear for his men's safety. Moultrie is accessed by land unlike Sumter and he felt unsafe because:
1) The SC'ians made a sign that said death to yankees
2) They had heard that northern men had been hung throughout the south
3) The towns people were constantly talking about Fort Moultrie getting stormed and attacked soon
4) Southern friends to the northern soldiers warned them that an attack was imminent
5) Southern soldiers were making preperations to attack Moultrie in full view of Fort Moultrie...demonstrations, moving cannons pointed at them about, and building scaling ladders.
Anderson's men were scared and their journals showed that they thought that they would be attacked at any moment in Moultrie.
The northern soldiers was not a military threat to Charleston, Charleston was a military threat to the northern soldiers. Even the more secure Fort Sumter was completely surrounded by southern cannon.
SC would be unable, for example, to pass ordinary laws affecting Fort Sumter (such as traffic, sanitation, etc.)
Without question, Property Clause of the Constitution clearly vests the Federal government with power to manage public lands, BUT I still maintain that Fed installations still remain a part of the state; whether its a post office, fort, park, etc.
For the new people. Hawglips is one of the most eloquent and learned proponents of the Confederacy. He is not a pawn of the SCV or any other radical group. If you want to learn something useful from the Confederate side of the topic, Hawglips holds the word.
ole
Ole, I apologize for missing this until now.
You embarrass me! But I thank you very much for your kind words.
Lincoln's interest in not accepting the CSA's offer to purchase the fort was that selling the fort to the CSA meant that the CSA legitimately existed in USA law, which he for obvious reasons wanted to avoid. On the otherhand, the USA turning down the CSA offer to buy the fort was an indicator that the USA and maybe Europe would not see the CSA as independent.
Was the CSA wanting to buy the fort, or was it South Carolina?
Was the CSA wanting to buy the fort, or was it South Carolina?
Effectively, negotiations never got that far, since neither Buchanan nor Lincoln felt they could accept the papers of both the state and the CSA delegates. In many cases, states seized the property first, without any offer of negotiations -- a clear violation of due process under their own laws, if nothing else.
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.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Police Power 
But I thank you very much for your kind words.
Linear Mode
