South Carolina's claim to Fort Sumter

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 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.

To make this argument, one would have to ignore, as wilbur has pointed out, the contract that gave the land that would become Ft. Sumter to the federal government. That would be a hard one to overcome in court.

R
 
Indeed an interesting line of thought on taking Fort Sumter in court as opposed to the use of force. The law people on the board should have a good time with this. In my opinion though the only way the South gets this Fort from the North is to do what they did. Take it by force of arms.:smile:
 
My point is that is not
entirely
true. As a portion of it belonged to them anyway.

Sorry it is entirely true, Federal Property is Federal property. Not property held in common.

The properties were deeded to the United States govt. a legal entity. As much a Legal entity as any of the States.
It is only public lands that are held in Common. forts, arsenals, Post offices etc are not public lands held in common. they are federal property.
 
Sorry it is entirely true, Federal Property is Federal property. Not property held in common.

The properties were deeded to the United States govt. a legal entity. As much a Legal entity as any of the States.
It is only public lands that are held in Common. forts, arsenals, Post offices etc are not public lands held in common. they are federal property.
Thank you DanF. I guess that blows out the negotiated settlement. The binding contract, being tied into recognition of Federal powers.
What I am really trying to factor in is: How could there have been settlement, without the violence. Every which way I look. It appears more of a done deal that war was unavoidable. Yet that, to me, should always be the last resort.
Both sides taking their stance, with heels firmly dug in. The rest is what we now call history.

Of course it was the fact of not recognising Federal power, in any form where S.Carolina stepped over the line. Can anyone see a compromise?
 
Thank you DanF. I guess that blows out the negotiated settlement. The binding contract, being tied into recognition of Federal powers.
What I am really trying to factor in is: How could there have been settlement, without the violence. Every which way I look. It appears more of a done deal that war was unavoidable. Yet that, to me, should always be the last resort.
Both sides taking their stance, with heels firmly dug in. The rest is what we now call history.

Of course it was the fact of not recognising Federal power, in any form where S.Carolina stepped over the line. Can anyone see a compromise?

Once the Deep South began seceding, the die was cast. It was just a matter of when and where and no longer if.

R
 
This was contained in the SC law handing over the property:

That, if the United States shall not, within three years from the passing of this act, and notification thereof by the governor of this State to the Executive of the United States, repair the fortifications now existing thereon, or build such other forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein, in such case this grant or cession shall be void and of no effect.

Was that condition ever met? Many of the laws also said they could be given as long as they were used for a fort for the defense of the state in which they were. Wouldn't the federal government loose the right to those lands since the state seceded (or claimed to have seceded) as a lawful governmental body?
 
This was contained in the SC law handing over the property:



Was that condition ever met? Many of the laws also said they could be given as long as they were used for a fort for the defense of the state in which they were. Wouldn't the federal government loose the right to those lands since the state seceded (or claimed to have seceded) as a lawful governmental body?
That was a bill that applied only to certain forts which are designated in the rest of that document...Basically, it was for the repair of other Union forts that were damaged by a hurracain.. It had nothing to do with Sumter..
 
This was contained in the SC law handing over the property:



Was that condition ever met? Many of the laws also said they could be given as long as they were used for a fort for the defense of the state in which they were. Wouldn't the federal government loose the right to those lands since the state seceded (or claimed to have seceded) as a lawful governmental body?

You can make that argument but it only really holds if secession was legal. Since South Carolina was viewed by the federal government as a state in rebellion, it doesn't hold up.

R
 
PA501&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3l4L56PAly3WMcwP7fvDOKQqC9MQ&ci=112%2C131%2C809%2C1193&edge=0.png
 
As you can see from the complete document the first couple of paragraphs describes the bounderies of this land in which the rest of the document is talking about...And Sumter is not within this area..

Thanks for finding that. Was the map in the book? Could it be "A portion of the sand bar marked C.... etc" Fort Sumter wouldn't have been referred to be name as it wasn't started until the 1820s.
 
Thanks for finding that. Was the map in the book? Could it be "A portion of the sand bar marked C.... etc" Fort Sumter wouldn't have been referred to be name as it wasn't started until the 1820s.

The ceding of the land Sumter occupied was done by the South Carolina Legislature in 1837.
 
Sorry, it was 1836 not 1837.

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.
__________________
 
My thanks to you all for the input. The document displayed by Wilbur, (contract). Is this the land deed to which DanF refers?
Assuming so. Having seceeded, S.Carolina had in effect, torn up their major contract with the U.S. (the constitution). I am not judging the legality of that act. But propose that having rejected one binding contract. All others would then be null and void.
As the CSA were then constructing their own govt. There would need to be a new contract made with the CON-FEDERAL govt. with regards to land within states. Dedicated for CON-FEDERAL use.

This being the case. The legality of seccession, had it been debated. Would also decide the legality of previous contracts and treaties between the parties. Or am I way off the track here?
 
Thanks for finding that. Was the map in the book? Could it be "A portion of the sand bar marked C.... etc" Fort Sumter wouldn't have been referred to be name as it wasn't started until the 1820s.
Sumter wasn't even a sand bar, as was brought up in the law suit, it was completely underwater until the Federal government brought in materials to build it up..
 
Back
Top