How did Federal Forts come to exist in a Suspicious South

Especially since the Southern elite had control of the Federal government for much of the time between the adoption of the Constitution and 1861.
Thank you. Not as fluid on this site as some I added this piont in down the line in a post. I had not looked into that yet but make sense in light of needing greater access to thw appropriation process. Not unlike today and the Common Welfare would be the greater security of the whole versus anypotential threat if or when Secession talk came up. Excellent point.
 
I've never heard of any discussion of Southern fear about government forts or installations in the South, but that doesn't mean there weren't any. But keep in mind that the government forts and installations were few and far between, and really offered no tangible threat to the South. Their value for protection was far greater than any perceived threat. And if they were in fact thinking of future conflict, those forts and installations could be seen as having significant hostage value (although again, I'm not aware of anyone raising that point).

Even as late as their secession, at least one Southern state complained about TOO SMALL of a government presence to protect them:

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

- Texas declaration of causes of secession

Source: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
Just two weeks after passing that declaration they took the United States soldiers stationed in Texas captive.
Thank you Brass. I believe that is pretty much where this could all end up. Forts, in the Deep South especially, could never be maintained and supported so far from the North. Supply lines to these would never be secured if ever even practicle to start which they would not be. Then South as well as the North who had forts built at the same time by the funds of the Third System program possibly shared the same view. Coastal forts were needed due to external threats and any internal threat would be viewed as minimal and unsupportable at best. Basically NO internal threat existed by a Coastal defense. It would be easy to appropriate money from the public coffers, neither side would view any reasonable request for fortifications, recommended under the great Madison, not a dig here, as a threat. So build away and ownership due to any future internal threat would be determined by who has the most men inside.

I wonder the time line which I cant do right now as I am late getting out of the office, This might even be stupid but were any forts taken peacefully before SHOTS were fired at thw Star of the West and Sumter ?? If so why did they not created the start of the War? I might have that handed back to me pretty quick. My knowledge is only General in nature and not dialed in like most here.
 
IIRC = If I Recall Correctly.

I never found any info on any debates concerning the ceding of the property. Probably because it was simply standard procedure (not to mention federal law) on how Federal property was aquired within States.

This applied not only to Forts, but land for arsenals, Post offices, custom houses, mints, etc.
IIRC. Makes sense now. Feel kinda dumb on that but I will get over it. In my defense I had just got in bed and was still jazzed at the responses to the OP. I never looked into it that far and am well pleased with the forthcoming content and the fact that we are all on track and theme and focused prior to Shots fired and the side trails that brings. Makes sense for Federal forts to be built by Federal dollars, a portion of which came from the South. Not sure the breakdown nor that it matters as we dont split hairs today on who paid what percent when it comes to the Common Defenses. I have heard that an offer was made to pay for these forts but I am not sure and that would take us, me off the focus of why nobody sy a problem with them being built with ao much tension in the air. But like Brass and I posted earlier, Deep South forts were not defensable or reinforcable by the North anyway or vice versa if the pedulum swung the other way. Thanks again for your input here.
 
I wonder the time line which I cant do right now as I am late getting out of the office, This might even be stupid but were any forts taken peacefully before SHOTS were fired at thw Star of the West and Sumter ??
Yes the south started taking over forts by force in december 1860.
Just because noone got hurt do not make the takeovers peacefull.
When 20 armed men enter a fort manned by 3 men, it is a take over by force.


http://civilwartalk.com/threads/related-links-to-secession-and-politics.21050/page-3
Originally Posted by brass napoleon Expired Image Removed
I thought I'd start this thread as a corollary to the "Sharing Federal Property in 1861" thread.(...)
Posted by Union Blue in answer to the above question.
STATE------------------------------------------------------SEIZED

SOUTH CAROLINA
Castle Pickney: US soldiers 1 LT. & 1 Ordnance SGT w/family-December 27
Fort Moultrie: 0 US soldiers due to skedaddle to Ft. Sumter---December 27
Charleston Arsenal: 1 Capt and 14 soldiers-------------------December 31
Fort Johnson: 0 US soldiers----------------------------------January 2

GEORGIA
Fort Pulaski: 1 US Ordnance SGT-----------------------------January 3
Augusta Arsenal: 81 US Soldiers, 1 CAPT & 80 Enlisted Men----January 24
Oglethorpe Barracks: 0, see above---------------------------January 26
Fort Jackson: 1 US Ordnance SGT---------------------------January 26

FLORIDA
Chattahoochee Arsenal: 1 US Ordnance SGT-------------------January 6
Fort Marion: 1 US Ordnance SGT------------------------------January 7
Fort Clinch: 0, unmanned-------------------------------------January 8
Fort McRee: 0, unmanned at time of seizure-------------------January 12
Fort Barrancas: 0, unmanned at time of seizure----------------January 12
Barrancas Barracks: 46 US Soldiers----------------------------January 12
Pensacola Navy Yard:Unknown nr of US Marines & 20 Soldiers--January 12

LOUISIANA
Baton Rouge Arsenal: 81 US Soldiers--------------------------January 10
Batton Rouge Barracks: see above----------------------------January 10
Fort Jackson: 1 US Ordnance SGT-----------------------------January 11
Fort St. Philip: 1 civilian caretaker & dozen slaves--------------January 11
Fort Pike: 0, unmanned---------------------------------------January 14
Naval Hospital: unknown concerning US personnel--------------January 14
Fort Macomb: unknown concerning US personnel---------------January 28

ALABAMA
Mt Vernon Arsenal: 1 US CAPT & 17 US Soldiers----------------January 4
Fort Morgan: 1 US Ordnance SGT------------------------------January 5
Fort Gaines: 1 US Officer & "all hands?"------------------------January 18

MISSISSIPPI
Fort Massachusetts: 1 US Officer-----------------------------January 20

ARKANSAS
Little Rock Arsenal: 1 US Officer & company? of US Artillery-----February 8
Napoleon Ordnance Depot-No information given---------------February 12

TEXAS
San Antonio Arsenal-----------------------------------------February 16
San Antonio Barracks----------------------------------------February 16
Camp Adams------------------------------------------------February 18
Camp Cooper-----------------------------------------------February 21
Brazos Santiago---------------------------------------------February 21
Camp Colorado----------------------------------------------February 26
Fort Chadbourne--------------------------------------------February 28
Fort Belknap------------------------------------------------February ?
Camp Verde----------------------------------------------------March 7
Ringgold Barracks-----------------------------------------------March 7
Fort McIntosh-------------------------------------------------March 12
Camp Wood---------------------------------------------------March 15
Camp Hudson--------------------------------------------------March 17
Fort Inge------------------------------------------------------March 19
Fort Lancaster-------------------------------------------------March 19
Fort Clark-----------------------------------------------------March 19
Fort Duncun---------------------------------------------------March 20
Fort Brown----------------------------------------------------March 20
Fort Bliss------------------------------------------------------March 31
Fort Mason----------------------------------------------------March 31
Fort Quitman---------------------------------------------------April 5
Fort Davis------------------------------------------------------April 13
Fort Stockton---------------------------------------------------April ?

Texas had a total of 2,684 US Troops assigned to the various forts, arsenals, & camps above. There were 102 Officers, 2,343 Enlisted Men, 136 Laundresses, and 103 Servants. 815 US Officers and Soldiers were held as Prisoners of War for two years.

Also taken over during this time were the revenue cutters William Aiken, J. C. Dobbin, Lewis Cass, Washington and Henry Dodge, as well as customs houses, post offices, sub-treasuries and mints.

The Beginning And The End: The Civil War Story Of Federal Surrenders Before Fort Sumter And Confederate Surrenders After Appomattox, by Dayton Pryor
 
were any forts taken peacefully before SHOTS were fired at thw Star of the West and Sumter

Many Forts and other Federal properties were seized before Sumter. As already noted, while shots were not fired that does not make the seizures "peaceful".

The main reason these incidents did not start full scale war was that Buchanan refused to take any action concerning these incidents. He was more concerned with making sure war didn't break out during what remained of his term than he was anything else.

Here is a partial list of seizures.


January 3, 1861: Georgia seizes Fort Pulaski.

January 19, 1861: Georgia secedes.

January 4, 1861: Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon.
January 5, 1861: Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines.

January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.

January 6, 1861: Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal.
January 7, 1861: Florida seizes Fort Marion.
January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.

January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.


January 10, 1861 Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well
as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.
January 11, 1861 Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital.
January 14, 1861: Louisiana seizes Fort Pike.

January 26, 1861: Louisiana secedes.

February 8, 1861: Arkansas seizes U.S. Arsenal at Little Rock.
February 12, 1861: Arkansas seizes U.S. ordnance stores at Napoleon.

May 6, 1861 Arkansas Secedes.
 
Coastal forts were a system of national defense; they were even referred to as 1st, 2nd, 3rd system. A fort in say Charleston harbor wasn't just there to defend Charleston. Nor would a foreign power attacking Charleston only be interested in Charleston or South Carolina; most likely it would want Charleston or wherever as a base for further operations against the United States.

A national defense system has to include all potential objectives. If a nation has say ten harbors and fortifies nine of them, what is an invader likely to do?

Is there any historical record of anyone in the south, or anywhere in the nation for that matter, objecting to the federal government building forts to protect their harbors?
 
Yes the south started taking over forts by force in december 1860.
Just because noone got hurt do not make the takeovers peacefull.
When 20 armed men enter a fort manned by 3 men, it is a take over by force.


http://civilwartalk.com/threads/related-links-to-secession-and-politics.21050/page-3
I understand your point here. However as a former a Marine of ten years it is a matter of perspective. It could have been 600 men with artilery support. I agree they were forcefully taken. At least this one and Sumter. Others I am sure but my knowledge does not extend there so I will not hazard to guess as I know the knowledge base here is broad and nuance is important here. Thank you for the post
 
Last edited:
Let's say there was a group of Southerners opposed to permanent Federal forts in the South due to concern over state sovereignty, or due to a danger of Federal abuse of some kind, or as a problem during a possible secession war. (Not that they could admit the latter.)

The states could not afford to build their own forts.

The coastal forts were a system of national defense. If the South refuses the forts the North would still want theirs. Now you have the South opposing the whole fort building system because it only benefits the North, but the South is still paying for part of it. It would have been a good way for the South to **** of the North.
 
create the problem to solve the problem? money being made all around. :whistling:
Seems this can be said through our history. It would be interesting to see in most all cases of forts North and South what family or family friend or business interest or politician personally gained but at this point that may be off thread as it appears from the bulk of the knowledge base here the Forts were needed due to the threats from Spain. GB, France. They were Constitutional as Common Defense and a lot were in the works before things got real tense. Maybe my modern day suspicion of most things from Washington is being deflected back to then. I am always looking for what is really the goal of legislation or proposed bills.
 
Coastal forts were a system of national defense; they were even referred to as 1st, 2nd, 3rd system. A fort in say Charleston harbor wasn't just there to defend Charleston. Nor would a foreign power attacking Charleston only be interested in Charleston or South Carolina; most likely it would want Charleston or wherever as a base for further operations against the United States.

A national defense system has to include all potential objectives. If a nation has say ten harbors and fortifies nine of them, what is an invader likely to do?

Is there any historical record of anyone in the south, or anywhere in the nation for that matter, objecting to the federal government building forts to protect their harbors?

I know of non as yet. A lot of power players have joined in this OP so if they are there they will be ferreted out , I am sure. Thank you for the post and research
 
Many Forts and other Federal properties were seized before Sumter. As already noted, while shots were not fired that does not make the seizures "peaceful".

The main reason these incidents did not start full scale war was that Buchanan refused to take any action concerning these incidents. He was more concerned with making sure war didn't break out during what remained of his term than he was anything else.

Here is a partial list of seizures.


January 3, 1861: Georgia seizes Fort Pulaski.

January 19, 1861: Georgia secedes.

January 4, 1861: Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon.
January 5, 1861: Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines.

January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.

January 6, 1861: Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal.
January 7, 1861: Florida seizes Fort Marion.
January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.

January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.


January 10, 1861 Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well
as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.
January 11, 1861 Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital.
January 14, 1861: Louisiana seizes Fort Pike.

January 26, 1861: Louisiana secedes.

February 8, 1861: Arkansas seizes U.S. Arsenal at Little Rock.
February 12, 1861: Arkansas seizes U.S. ordnance stores at Napoleon.

May 6, 1861 Arkansas Secedes.
Thank you DanF, you guys have dug up more in the past 18 hours than i could have found in a week full time. Your efforts in answering my question are greatly appreciated Sir.
 
Let's say there was a group of Southerners opposed to permanent Federal forts in the South due to concern over state sovereignty, or due to a danger of Federal abuse of some kind, or as a problem during a possible secession war. (Not that they could admit the latter.)

The states could not afford to build their own forts.

The coastal forts were a system of national defense. If the South refuses the forts the North would still want theirs. Now you have the South opposing the whole fort building system because it only benefits the North, but the South is still paying for part of it. It would have been a good way for the South to **** of the North.
GREAT POINT as it all had to be passed in an Appropriations bill. One could not line item veto all of the Southen forts just to allow the South to build them even if they could afford it. They would certainly heighten tension and all States would be vulnerable to attacks by outside powers. Either North to South or vice versa. It would need to be all or nothing. DECENT, if an would most likely be laughable at this point in history and a totally up hill sell.
 
..,In addition to coastal defense, US forts were build as part of Indian defense. For example Forts were built in Texas during the 1840s and 1850s to protect Texas against Indian trbes and in the 1830s Arkansas requested that the Feds maintain a presence near the border with Indian territory which led to construction of Fort Smith in the 1830s and 1840s.

The so-called first Fort Smith, built on Belle Point jutting into the Arkansas River had actually been started in 1819 before Indian Removal when Arkansas was still a territory (part of the Louisiana Purchase) and Indian Territory was in dispute with the Spanish. "Modern" Fort Smith was built a short remove from the original site; by then the boundary between I.T. and the now State of Arkansas had been drawn so that the original stockade was actually in I.T., so the new fort was moved back a short distance to the east into Arkansas.
 
I will need to look up United States coastal fortifications. I do not have a list of forts as yet, but will be getting on it. The idea and questions came at me while unprepared to answer them and not the time at that point to search them out although finding it an odd contradiction. I agree with you that with Southerns in the White House no fear should have existed. Today we seem to think a little further ahead like who will be appointed to SCOTUS or some other office. Perhaps they really did believe it could all be worked out without coming to blows. I believe Sumter was built in the 1820's which seems to be when tensions were heightened. I would think some alarm who have been prudent but costly to the purse again or to showing good faith to the Union. Maybe as today these plans are debated many more years in advance and project just move forward as economic projects where common sense does not prevail. I have seen Government contracts fulfilled knowing a new contract will be issued to change what has not been completed yet at a Base that was closed shortly there after. Knowing this period, as you do, do you think they just let them, the Federal Gov., build what they wanted? Since you can't take it with you there was NO threat maybe. That nobody would go to war over a block fortress like at Sumter that was so far from friendly territory if things got Hot... I apologize for the messed up spelling. I will refrain from using my phone for this as best I can.

It's an interesting subject, as you will learn, dealing with first system forts, second system forts, third system forts, post rebellion forts, coastal artillery forts, and on and on. And you will find there are more than you might have thought - there were over 120 forts in the three systems, and that doesn't include forts that the U.S. inherited from the British, French, or Spanish.
 
201281154937_Rhode Island, Oct. 1998 007B.JPG


It might surprise you if you think about all the third tier seacoast fortifications that were placed at the same time in the North like Fort Adams here guarding Narraganset Bay at Newport, Rhode Island. The ones in the South like Sumter, Pickens, Monroe, Pulaski, Jefferson, Gaines, Morgan, Jackson, and St. Phillip became famous during the Civil War for various military reasons, but others out of the limelight remain that had all been built for the same purpose. Between wars artillery Major Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson was briefly stationed at one guarding New York Harbor.

201281155119_Rhode Island, Oct. 1998 007A1.JPG


Almost unbelievably, one also exists at Detroit, Michigan named Fort Wayne which was authorized to be built during a time of unrest between the U.S. and the British in Canada and guards the Detroit River there. Naturally, it never saw any action but remained in service until following WWII. During the Civil War it was used as an induction center for new recruits: http://civilwartalk.com/threads/fort-wayne-detroit-michigan.100103/#post-878886

063-jpg.jpg
 
Last edited:
It's an interesting subject, as you will learn, dealing with first system forts, second system forts, third system forts, post rebellion forts, coastal artillery forts, and on and on. And you will find there are more than you might have thought - there were over 120 forts in the three systems, and that doesn't include forts that the U.S. inherited from the British, French, or Spanish.
Thank you. I posted earlier a website, but as yet have not taken the time, sorry, to learn to cut and paste on my phone. I went back to find it but did not. Odds are you have that info. It was cdsg.org. I just found it in my paper notes on this thread. I It listed 10 pages i think on the 3 systems. Some washed away and some nevwr finished. I have been to several of these that were used for ww2. Pretty cool. They filmed An Officer and a Gentleman in Ft Casey on whidbey Island. They used to for the PT test. But that is off thread. But cool. Thank you Sir for stopping in.
 
View attachment 102354

It might surprise you if you think about all the third tier seacoast fortifications that were placed at the same time in the North like Fort Adams here guarding Narraganset Bay at Newport, Rhode Island. The ones in the south like Sumter, Pickens, Monroe, Jefferson, Gaines, Morgan, Jackson, and St. Phillip became famous during the Civil War for various military reasons, but others out of the limelight remain that had all been built for the same purpose. Between wars artillery Major Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson was briefly stationed at one guarding New York Harbor.

View attachment 102355

Almost unbelievably, one also exists at Detroit, Michigan named Fort Wayne which was authorized to be built during a time of unrest between the U.S. and the British in Canada. Naturally, it never saw any action but remained in service until following WWII. During the Civil War it was used as an induction center for new recruits: http://civilwartalk.com/threads/fort-wayne-detroit-michigan.100103/#post-878886

063-jpg.jpg
Awesome pics, I love digging, not literally although I wish I could, around old forts and the like. Must have been a hot boring life like out west unless closer to a town. Of course cold and boring up North and Northwest. Thank you
 
293-jpg.jpg


Thank you. I posted earlier a website, but as yet have not taken the time, sorry, to learn to cut and paste on my phone. I went back to find it but did not. Odds are you have that info. It was cdsg.org. I just found it in my paper notes on this thread. I It listed 10 pages i think on the 3 systems. Some washed away and some nevwr finished. I have been to several of these that were used for ww2. Pretty cool. They filmed An Officer and a Gentleman in Ft Casey on whidbey Island. They used to for the PT test. But that is off thread. But cool. Thank you Sir for stopping in.

Another interesting site not actually on the coast is Fort Washington, Maryland, across the Potomac River from Mount Vernon, Virginia. Before the war it was the only riverine protection for the U. S. capital. Like many of the others, it retains evidence of the transformation of warfare from smoothbore cannon through rifled artillery, and eventually electrically-detonated mines and torpedoes: http://civilwartalk.com/threads/fort-washington-maryland.103797/

292-jpg.jpg
 
Last edited:
Awesome pics, I love digging, not literally although I wish I could, around old forts and the like. Must have been a hot boring life like out west unless closer to a town. Of course cold and boring up North and Northwest. Thank you

If you like other old forts, here's a thread I created earlier this spring after a visit to a few of the Texas frontier forts, many of which were also established in the antebellum period: http://civilwartalk.com/threads/texas-forts-trail.123153/

west-texas-march-2016-054-jpg.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top