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.
Why? It's in the U.S. Constitution and accepted by all the states.
Article I, Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power...
...., and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
Well, its true, its not like each citizen is sitting on shares that are bought and sold on a stock market, but we are discussing what would conceivably happen if the Feds actually recognized secession or if the South had won and obviously they would have to settle the differences. Just like a corporation, the Federal government has assets and liabilities. It would be, quite literally an accounting nightmare; as such I would think that the agreement of separation would have simply noted that all Federal installations in the seceded state would go to that state and each state would assume some portion of the national debt.
There may be one or two installations the Feds would have liked to keep even if they decided to recognize secession, but largely there would be no compelling interest in maintaining tiny enclaves surrounded by Confederate territory.
Why? It's in the U.S. Constitution and accepted by all the states.
Article I, Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power...
...., and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
"by the Consent of the Legislature of the State"
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.
__________________ 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
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 good citizens of SC participated in paying for the fort only to the extent of their selling the shoal to the government and helping pay for said sale by purchasing imported goods. There also were paid laborers from the Charleston area participating in the building.
The government (the people of all the states) bought the property and paid for the labor and materials used in the fort subsequently erected on the site. It was built to protect Charleston Harbor from foreign invasion. As such, it was in the interest of all the states to have such fortifications there. (Even though the harbor was unimproved, substandard, and of little profitable use.)
It remains that the forts were Federal property and that the CSA wanted them back. Both sides are understandable. It's Federal property. The CSA cannot abide federal property inside its harbors. As such, Sumter was a symbol. It had no possibility of actually threatening Charleston--it couldn't be supplied. It had no particular value to the Federal Government after secession--it couldn't be supplied. It was the chip on the shoulder or, if you'd rather, the line drawn in the sand.
There is no question but that the fort was the property of the people of the United States. Knocking off the chip or stepping over that line was the kicker.
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
No. It wasn't a question of ownership. It was Lincoln's chip and it was up to Jeff to knock it off. And he did.
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
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
__________________ 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
Does anyone actually believe that the US government's interest in holding Fort Sumter was about property ownership?
You know what, in a way it sort of is. Lincoln had the opinion that secession was not possible and therefore he would hold onto all federal property that he currently had in the south and at least ask for federal property back that had been confiscated by the CSA. How can the CSA hold onto property if they don't legally exist? Sort of "It's "ours", not yours, get back in step with us."
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.
The fort was USA property, but in all reality, if the CSA were to become independent, the only real use the USA could get out of the fort would be to simply annoy the CSA with a USA presence in one of their busy harbors.
Largely correct, michiganmoon. Lincoln's initial stance was that there was no southern confederacy. He had political and practical reasons for taking that stance -- some of which concerned international interests.
While it was in his face, he could not acknowledge the Confederacy as a belligerant nation. To do so would open up all kinds of complications with Europe. Even treading the fine line he was, he bumped heavily into internationally understood convention.
It was a hard spot.
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 have to agree with much of what has been said in the last couple posts here. Lincoln did not accept secession as legitimate, and therefore, he could not give into demands made by the CSA, such as offers to buy Federal property. Now, for the most part, they had just taken arsenals, naval yards, and the like when the states seceded. But there were two posts that they could not touch: Ft. Pickens and Ft. Sumter. These two forts were occupied by Federal troops and the only way that the Confederates could have taken them was to storm them, which would be an act of war. They, as we know, didn't want to be the aggressor, though thats how it ended up in the end. Therefore, their only recourse was to offer purchase.
What else could Lincoln do? He does not recognize the Confederate government as legitimate. He is doing his best to make the European nations see it that way too. But if he goes and sells the last two remaining Federal strongholds in the South (one of which never fell to Confederate hands) then he has given them legitimacy and said that secession is a right that the states do have, and that opens an even larger can of worms (because then New York City could secede, as they threatened to do, even though I don't think they would have anyway, and also possible New Jersey, which pondered the question a little as well.)
When Lincoln took the oath of office, he vowed to uphold the Constitution of the United States to the best of his ability. Now Article 1 section 8 does say that Congress has the power to hold authority of Federal installations, but they cannot do that without the president per se, because each branch can't operate separate of the others (even though the USSC seems to think so .) And the oath does not say that he is to uphold Article 3 of the Constitution, but the whole document. Lincoln was doing his job, and any president who did not do the same would be thought of as derelict in his duties.
__________________ "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. 
The U.S. owned Fort Sumter 
.) And the oath does not say that he is to uphold Article 3 of the Constitution, but the whole document. Lincoln was doing his job, and any president who did not do the same would be thought of as derelict in his duties.
Linear Mode
