Ownership of Ft. Sumter

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Freddy

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
3,323
Location
Worcester, MA
Federal documents regarding the appropriations and construction of Fort Sumter state: "for the defence of Charleston harbor."
Just as the construction of Forts Warren, Adams, and McHenry were for the defense of Boston, Newport/Providence, and Baltimore, respectively.
 

sf46

Corporal
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
462
Location
Pointe Coupee Parish, LA
I would add that, until SC/Charleston decided they wanted the forts back, the garrisons were purchasing their provisions in town, the men took leave in town, officers attended parties in town. There was never a threat. The problem the Confederacy had with Sumter is that it couldn't just take it like it had taken all but a few Federal installations.

By the way, Tim, much appreciated the links you provided.
Ole
That's because quite a few installations were staffed by a lone Ordnance Sergeant who was basically just a care taker.
 

Elennsar

Colonel
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,823
Location
California
Given the miniscule size of the United States Army at the time, and where the greatest need for it was prior to the war, I am not surprised that most of the federal forts were, to say the least, undermanned.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
227
Location
Los Angeles
The Federal government was using the fort with the intent to inflict injury upon the people of South Carolina- assisting in blockading the port of Charleston and training guns upon the same (with no state of war existing at the time).

This was not the original purpose for which the land was acquired and fort constructed...in fact 180 degrees from it.

Whatever contracts existing between the State of SC and the Federal government (regarding the land and fort) were voided at the moment the fort was used for purposes contrary for which it was built.
In addition, the entire Union claim is absurd, i.e. that "we had a right to invade and conquer the southern states, because they refused to allow us to use the Fort as a stronghold from which to invade and conquer them."

Obviously, unless they had the right to invade and conquer the states in the first place, then they didn't have the right to use the fort in this capacity-- regardless of who technically "owned" it. This is just one more incidence of not only history being written by the victors, but truth in general as well.

Finally, while it's ridiculous to claim "ownership" of a piece of land that is taken by a nation you're invading and conquering, as a reason to invade and conquer it; it's even more ridiculous when that piece of land is well-inside the borders of that nation in question.

In conclusion, the issue of ownership if the fort, is a non-issue; sovereign nations have the absolute right to remove declared hostiles from their territory, and to preserve their integrity against ruthless invaders.
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,431
Location
Near Kankakee
And bumped again to provide a better forum for invasion theorists.

Ole
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

OpnOlympic

Cadet
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
662
In point of Fact, Legally(and historically) Buchanan's Sec'y of War ltr to the gov. of S.C. says all that needs to be said about this particular matter.
 
Top