More silly guys who worried that slavery would tear the country apart

[wbull1]

Sources please and show documentation that all the arms in those arsenals were the property of the Feds.

The property was FEDERAL. The contents were FEDERAL. They were seized by force. Try claiming your neighbor's household goods and see what will happen. Perhaps that will clarify the issue for you.

 

[Viper21]

The property was FEDERAL. The contents were FEDERAL. They were seized by force. Try claiming your neighbor's household goods and see what will happen. Perhaps that will clarify the issue for you.

The Federals sure didn't have a problem seizing household goods from Southerners ...!

 

[Greywolf]

The property was FEDERAL. The contents were FEDERAL. They were seized by force. Try claiming your neighbor's household goods and see what will happen. Perhaps that will clarify the issue for you.

He simply asked for a source/proof of your claim, you did not. No need to jump down his throat, provide the asked for source, or back out.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Sources please and show documentation that all the arms in those arsenals were the property of the Feds.

C'mon, seriously! Do you really believe that the arms and munitions in a Federal arsenal or armory that was manned by Federal personnel would belong to the state? If that was the case, then why have State armories?

 

[19thGeorgia]

Federal Forts, means Federal Property.

Kevin Dally

I didn't say forts.

I'll repeat my questions: "who had ownership of the arms and other munitions within the forts and arsenals. Quotas of arms were due to the several states. Where were they kept? What was the purpose of the arsenals?"

"Congress hoped to see every adult white male in the nation in possession of a firearm; arms were allotted to each state based on population, with the firearms remaining the property of the state." -Guns in America: A Historical Reader, p.31

 

[unionblue]

The Federals sure didn't have a problem seizing household goods from Southerners ...!

That was only after the invitation was given to come South and "shop."

 

[19thGeorgia]

C'mon, seriously! Do you really believe that the arms and munitions in a Federal arsenal or armory that was manned by Federal personnel would belong to the state? If that was the case, then why have State armories?

What was the purpose of Federal arsenals located within the states? To arm Federal troops? Were they not already armed?

 

[WJC]

Exactly. The treaty codified the practice and set the legal precedent for the Confederate Patriots. Or maybe you care to show me where the Rebels turned over all the forts to the British prior to negotiating the treaty?

If there was any "precedent", it was that the turnover of forts by the British was done through negotiation, not forcible seizure.

 

[WJC]

What was the purpose of Federal arsenals located within the states? To arm Federal troops? Were they not already armed?

By An act to provide for the erecting and repairing of arsenals and magazines, and for other purposes, Congress in 1794 granted President George Washington the authority to establish national arsenals to arm the new United States Army with domestically produced weapons. [Emphasis added].
See https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.2200050g/

 

[Tom Hughes]

That is really interesting. However, if they thought slavery was such an important issue, maybe they should have done something about it.

The problem for society then was not only getting rid of slavery but how were they going to deal with the volume of freed slaves in society. Blacks weren’t seen as equals with whites and they were afraid that vengeful blacks would perpetrate violence on whites as well.

 

[Horrido67]

Once a state had seceded, the public property within its territorial limits was owned by that state.

Hi, I am new to this forum and I am still earning the American Civil War, so I am not a well-versed person on this topic. However any learned members who have studied this subject extensively can provide any example or court decision proves that indeed this assertion is true? (Personally I find it absurd, but I am trying to be open-minded)

 

[byron ed]

Hi, I am new to this forum and I am still earning the American Civil War, so I am not a well-versed person on this topic. However any learned members who have studied this subject extensively can provide any example or court decision proves that indeed this assertion is true? (Personally I find it absurd, but I am trying to be open-minded)

Not so absurd. A good background on this aspect of the CW is to read James McPhersons's classic book "The Negro's Civil War: How American Blacks Felt and Acted During the War for the Union" which cites several comments from whites at the time (North and South) indicating their concerns over dealing with the volume of freed slaves in society and the fear that vengeful blacks might perpetrate violence on whites.

The book is about far more than that, so if you're not into reading the whole book just now perhaps do a search on those specific aspects in a digital version of the book, for free through your local library. Everyone here should probably have read the book anyway though, to understand the driving significance of this "third front" in the ACW. It's not something that's traditionally been considered important in a forum that focuses of battles and strategies, but none of those happened in a vacuum and nearly every aspect of the Civil War was significantly affected by the condition and activism of negro residents of the United States. This was no "white man's war" as Lost Cause would have it.

 

[Horrido67]

Thank you Mr. Byron Ed for your suggestion and detailed explanation. I always find Mr McPherson's books a great read. Unfortunately that was not what I was asking.

My question is that if there was a court decision or any other evidences show that the assertion that a seceded state is automatically allowed to assume a control of Federal properties within their borders is true. I find this claim absurd since I have not came across any evidence supports this claim.

 

[huskerblitz]

Thank you Mr. Byron Ed for your suggestion and detailed explanation. I always find Mr McPherson's books a great read. Unfortunately that was not what I was asking.

My question is that if there was a court decision or any other evidences show that the assertion that a seceded state is automatically allowed to assume a control of Federal properties within their borders is true. I find this claim absurd since I have not came across any evidence supports this claim.

Doesn't matter, it was taken by force. Just like the US did when it seized control of British property or Mexican property. Just like any rebellious force or military force that takes over an area.

 

[GwilymT]

Thank you Mr. Byron Ed for your suggestion and detailed explanation. I always find Mr McPherson's books a great read. Unfortunately that was not what I was asking.

My question is that if there was a court decision or any other evidences show that the assertion that a seceded state is automatically allowed to assume a control of Federal properties within their borders is true. I find this claim absurd since I have not came across any evidence supports this claim.

I know of no such decision or law. In our country, the ceding of state property to the federal government is much the same as a private sale. The land, fort, island, what have you was transferred to another entity. The owner of the property was then the government of the United States and not the state in which said property was located. If I sell or transfer a piece of my land, I cannot later take it at gun point and justify my actions by saying “it was mine before I gave it to you.” To take it by force is either thievery or an act of war.

 

[Horrido67]

Doesn't matter, it was taken by force. Just like the US did when it seized control of British property or Mexican property. Just like any rebellious force or military force that takes over an area.

I know of no such decision or law. In our country, the ceding of state property to the federal government is much the same as a private sale. The land, fort, island, what have you was transferred to another entity. The owner of the property was then the government of the United States and not the state in which said property was located. If I sell or transfer a piece of my land, I cannot later take it at gun point and justify my actions by saying “it was mine before I gave it to you.” To take it by force is either thievery or an act of war.

Thank you for your replies. Yet, why do people claim...

Once a state had seceded, the public property within its territorial limits was owned by that state.

I mean there must be some evidence support this kind of claim. Otherwise, why do people keep making a seemingly preposterous claim that once a state secedes from the Union, the seceded state gets to own Federal properties within their borders (therefore Ft Sumter and all the other Federal instalments should have been handed to the Confederacy without a fight)?

 

[huskerblitz]

Thank you for your replies. Yet, why do people claim...


I mean there must be some evidence support this kind of claim. Otherwise, why do people keep making a seemingly preposterous claim that once a state secedes from the Union, the seceded state gets to own Federal properties within their borders (therefore Ft Sumter and all the other Federal instalments should have been handed to the Confederacy without a fight)?

Well, this gets muddled very quickly. In the US system of government, public property could be state-owned or federally owned. Anything owned by the state obviously would go with that state when they left the Union. Now federally-owned property is another matter. And that's where force comes into play. The colonies broke away from England, they took the land they wanted and seized forts in the process. That's what happens in war.

 

[Horrido67]

Well, this gets muddled very quickly. In the US system of government, public property could be state-owned or federally owned. Anything owned by the state obviously would go with that state when they left the Union. Now federally-owned property is another matter. And that's where force comes into play. The colonies broke away from England, they took the land they wanted and seized forts in the process. That's what happens in war.

Thank you for your explanation, Mr. Huskerbiltz. A few more question, if you don't mind. Has the Federal government ever demand compensation for stolen or damaged Federally-owned properties from former Confederate states after the war? Have ex-Confederate states ever attempted to demand compensation for stolen or damaged state-owned properties from the Federal government? Have slave owners ever tried to claim that the 13th amendment violated their private property rights guaranteed under the Fifth amendment and argued that they are entitled to 'just compensation'? Or they just wrote off all the losses since sh*ts happen in war?

 

[John Hartwell]

.... why do people keep making a seemingly preposterous claim that once a state secedes from the Union, the seceded state gets to own Federal properties within their borders (therefore Ft Sumter and all the other Federal instalments should have been handed to the Confederacy without a fight)?

Well, this gets muddled very quickly. In the US system of government, public property could be state-owned or federally owned. Anything owned by the state obviously would go with that state when they left the Union. Now federally-owned property is another matter. And that's where force comes into play. The colonies broke away from England, they took the land they wanted and seized forts in the process. That's what happens in war.

Yes, that's what happens in rebellion. And rebellion is not a "lawful" undertaking anywhere.

Rebellion, or attempted revolution, is the right of any community that feels itself pushed to extreme necessity, but it only becomes lawful if it succeeds. The American Revolution succeeded, the Confederate one didn't.

It is entirely understandable that the rebelling Confederates should seize deeded Federal property as part of their rebellion, but, it was an extra-legal action. And for us, today, to say they had a legal right to do so is absurd. They had the right, as a discrete segment of the population, to attempt revolution, as the Colonists had in the 1770s, but the Federal government had every lawful right to resist, as the British authorities had. Today, there is no "blame" to be put, except upon the secessionists' justifications for their rebellion, and their arrogant mis-judgement as to the ability and willingness of the people of the United States to resist their claims.

 

[Horrido67]

Yes, that's what happens in rebellion. And rebellion is not a "lawful" undertaking anywhere.

Rebellion, or attempted revolution, is the right of any community that feels itself pushed to extreme necessity, but it only becomes lawful if it succeeds. The American Revolution succeeded, the Confederate one didn't.

It is entirely understandable that the rebelling Confederates should seize deeded Federal property as part of their rebellion, but, it was an extra-legal action. And for us, today, to say they had a legal right to do so is absurd. They had the right, as a discrete segment of the population, to attempt revolution, as the Colonists had in the 1770s, but the Federal government had every lawful right to resist, as the British authorities had. Today, there is no "blame" to be put, except upon the secessionists' justifications for their rebellion, and their arrogant mis-judgement as to the ability and willingness of the people of the United States to resist their claims.

Thank you Mr. John Hartwell. Certainly, there is no "blame" to be put, except the few who actually were responsible for the crisis. However, Mr. Hartwell, I believe the rebels claimed that they had a legal right to resist the Federal government and It seems like the rebels believed that they had a legal right to secede without any consent from other states nor the Federal government.

If I remember correctly (please feel free to correct me as I am probably less educated on this matter), the soon-to-be Confederate states listed a number of their grievances (mostly about slavery) at their secession convention and in their secession documents. Then the rebel states went on accusing the North (and the Federal government) of not honoring the constitution of which the rebel states claimed guaranteed slavery as properties and therefore they were legally entitled to dissolve the Union and walk away as a sovereign state. Hence, in their view, it wasn't an extra-legal action (rebellion), but it was a legal divorce (a lawful secession). I assume that wasn't the first time that the South made that claim either since John C. Calhoun had reportedly made a similar argument many years ago.

My questions would be then, Mr. Hartwell, were Confederates right at the time? Did they actually have a constitutional right to 'resist the federal government and secede from the Union'? Or everything is moot as the question was decided by a trial by combat on battlefields. I am not trying to be argumentative and disrespectful, but just being curious as I try to learn the American Civil War. Thank you in advance.