FourLeafClover
First Sergeant
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Location
- London
I see this as a controversial subject to bring up. I consistently find the opinion that, S.Carolina had no right to claim Fort Sumter, as it was Federal property.
I put to you the opinion that, as Federal investment was used to construct the fortification after the 1812 war. Construction of Sumter in 1829. One of the 24 contributors to the Federal treasury, was in fact South Carolina. As such they would be entitled to at least, 1/24th of its value.
Extrapolated to suggest that as other states joined the confederacy. Their share of Federal wealth would increase. Virginia, N.Carolina, Tennessee (also states in 1829).
Followed by Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi(1817), Alabama(1819).
Discounting Kentucky and Missouri as not fully committed. Totals 8 of the 24 states existing in 1829.
i.e. 1/3rd of the national wealth having been contributed by tax raising within Confederate states.
Arkansas(1836), Florida and Texas(1845). Would mean, of the 32 states in existance in 1861. 11 of them approx 1/3. Would have been responsible for contributions to the national wealth. Having seceeded, there is a general accusation that, they stole, or sequestered, Federal property.
My point is that is not entirely true. As a portion of it belonged to them anyway.
There were also moves to re-pay outstanding balances due to Washington. A negotiated price was never entertained. So I cannot comment on its proportion.
The method employed to take the property, is not a recommended route in any court of law. What I suggest though is, the accusation of theft, is perhaps a case that a good defence could be made. Where a neutral court may choose to award a figure of compensation, to the shared owners upon breaking a contract.
I believe that without the use of violence. S.Carolina may have had a legal chance of winning Fort Sumter. Along with other commonly held Federal establishments.
I am not familiar with US law, and far less familiar with 1861 US law. But I would invite your thoughts.
p.s. If this post is better suited to the "what if". Please feel free to shift it over there.
I put to you the opinion that, as Federal investment was used to construct the fortification after the 1812 war. Construction of Sumter in 1829. One of the 24 contributors to the Federal treasury, was in fact South Carolina. As such they would be entitled to at least, 1/24th of its value.
Extrapolated to suggest that as other states joined the confederacy. Their share of Federal wealth would increase. Virginia, N.Carolina, Tennessee (also states in 1829).
Followed by Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi(1817), Alabama(1819).
Discounting Kentucky and Missouri as not fully committed. Totals 8 of the 24 states existing in 1829.
i.e. 1/3rd of the national wealth having been contributed by tax raising within Confederate states.
Arkansas(1836), Florida and Texas(1845). Would mean, of the 32 states in existance in 1861. 11 of them approx 1/3. Would have been responsible for contributions to the national wealth. Having seceeded, there is a general accusation that, they stole, or sequestered, Federal property.
My point is that is not entirely true. As a portion of it belonged to them anyway.
There were also moves to re-pay outstanding balances due to Washington. A negotiated price was never entertained. So I cannot comment on its proportion.
The method employed to take the property, is not a recommended route in any court of law. What I suggest though is, the accusation of theft, is perhaps a case that a good defence could be made. Where a neutral court may choose to award a figure of compensation, to the shared owners upon breaking a contract.
I believe that without the use of violence. S.Carolina may have had a legal chance of winning Fort Sumter. Along with other commonly held Federal establishments.
I am not familiar with US law, and far less familiar with 1861 US law. But I would invite your thoughts.
p.s. If this post is better suited to the "what if". Please feel free to shift it over there.