Upon the Ownership of Fort Sumter

the54thmass

Banned
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
278
Location
South Carolina
A different look at the Fort Sumter incident

http://www.crownrights.com/blog/ebook/eleven.htm

CHAPTER ELEVEN:
Lincoln Circumvents the Constitution and the Laws


The North Mobilizes Against the South
The forts in the South were partnership property; and each State was an equal party in ownership. The Federal government was only a general agent of the real partners — the States — which composed the Union. The forts were designed to protect the States, and in case of withdrawal of a State the forts went with the State.
* * * * *South Carolina could not deprive New York of her forts, nor could New York deprive South Carolina of hers. The seceding States were perfectly willing to settle matters in a friendly way. They were striving only to resume the powers they had delegated.(1)
Such was sound reasoning. South Carolina had freely ceded property in Charleston Harbor to the federal Government in 1805, upon the express condition that "the United States... within three years... 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." Failure to comply with this condition on the part of the Government would render "this grant or cession... void and of no effect."(2) The State then appointed commissioners and paid for the land to be surveyed out of its own treasury.(3) Work on Fort Sumter did not begin until 1829 and had still not been completed by 1860. Unfinished and unoccupied for over thirty years, the terms of the cession were clearly not fulfilled. Consequently, the fort was never the property of the United States Government, as Lincoln claimed in his First Inaugural Address, and, upon secession from the Union, the only duty which South Carolina owed, either legally or morally, to the other States was "adequate compensation... for the value of the works and for any other advantage obtained by the one party, or loss incurred by the other."(4) In the words of Stephen Douglas:
We certainly cannot justify the holding of forts there, much less the recapturing of those which have been taken, unless we intend to reduce those States themselves into subjection. I take it for granted, no man will deny the proposition that whoever permanently holds Charleston and South Carolina is entitled to Fort Sumter.... Whoever holds the States in whose limits those forts are placed, is entitled to the forts themselves, unless there is something peculiar in the location of the same particular fort that makes it important to the general defense of the whole country, its commerce and interests, as in the case of Forts Taylor and Jefferson at Key West and Dry Tortugas. But Fort Sumter and other forts, in Charleston harbor; Fort Pulaski on the Savannah River; Fort Morgan and other forts in Alabama, were intended to guard the entrance to a particular harbor for local defense.(5)


Such being the case, the occupation of Fort Sumter by U.S. troops was technically an act of invasion and the Confederate forces in Charleston were wholly justified in firing upon them when it became evident that Lincoln intended to use military force against the State. However, taking into account the scheming mindset of those in possession of political power at the North, the destruction of Fort Sumter was "a political blunder almost incredible, a disaster to southern hopes more serious than the loss of many battles," for in doing so, the Confederate Government "did for the Lincoln administration what it could not do for itself — set and solidify the wavering and divided spirit of the North."(6) During a Cabinet meeting on 9 April 1861, Jefferson Davis' Secretary of State Robert Toombs had argued against the assault, warning, "The firing on that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has ever seen. Mr. President, if this is true, it is suicide, it is murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountains to ocean; and legions, now quiet, will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary, it puts us in the wrong. It is fatal."(7) Toombs' prediction could not have been more accurate. As one Northern periodical observed a few years after the Sumter incident, "The eyes of the whole nation were turned on Fort Sumter. One day a fleet of United States vessels appeared off the bar of Charleston, and the first gun was fired on the fortress. In one day, the whole North declared for war. The peace men were overborne; and, henceforth there was nothing heard of but vengeance, subjugation, and, if need be, extermination and annihilation, for the rebels who had dared fire upon the American flag."(8)

Lincoln, who made up in political savvy what he lacked in personal integrity, could not have been handed a more golden opportunity by the Confederates. As he told his old friend Senator Orville H. Browning of Illinois, "The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter — it fell, and thus did more service than it otherwise could."(9) Presidential secretaries and Lincoln biographers John G. Nicolay and John Hay admitted that the episode was ordered so that "the rebellion should be put in the wrong."(10) Even the Pittsburg Daily Gazette openly admitted that "Lincoln used Fort Sumter to draw [the Confederates'] fire," and that Jefferson Davis and his subordinates "ran blindly into the trap."(11)

*In a speech delivered in the Senate on 2 March 1861, Joseph Lane of Oregon warned of Lincoln's policy to "inveigle the people of the North into civil war, by masking the design in smooth and ambiguous terms."(12) Such was precisely what happened the following month. The general public in the North, ignorant as to who had really initiated the hostilities, was masterfully led by Lincoln to view the capture of Fort Sumter as the unprovoked attack upon the United States Government which he had previously left in the hands of the Southern States in his first Inaugural Address. In his address to Congress on 4 July 1861, Lincoln complained:
It is thus seen that the assault upon and reduction of Fort Sumter was in no sense a matter of self-defense on the part of the assailants. They well knew that the garrison in the fort could by no possibility commit aggression upon them. They knew — they were expressly notified — that the giving of bread to the few brave and hungry men of the garrison was all which would on that occasion be attempted, unless themselves, by resisting so much, should provoke more. They knew that this government desired to keep the garrison in the fort, not to assail them, but merely to maintain visible presence, and thus to preserve the Union from actual and immediate dissolution — trusting, as hereinbefore stated, to time, discussion, and the ballot-box for final adjustment.(13)

Of course, Lincoln failed to inform his audience not only of the secret expeditions to Pensacola and Charleston — that it was in response to these acts of war that the Confederates opened fire on Anderson's troops — but also that he had steadfastly refused to entertain any discussion of peace or "final adjustment" with either Colonel Baldwin or the Confederate peace commissioners and that he had "spurned and treated with contempt" the petitions of many people in the Northern States who "begged and implored... to be heard before matters were brought to a blood extreme."(14) Addressing an assembly of Evangelical Lutherans on 13 May 1862, Lincoln further spoke hypocritically of "the sword forced into our hands," and as late as his second Inaugural Address in March of 1865, he was still publicly laying the blame for the conflict at the feet of the Confederacy, while claiming for himself the role of a reluctant defender of an endangered Union.

Although Lincoln knew little of honorable statesmanship, he, like all tyrants throughout history, understood the basest instincts of men and how to channel human depravity to suit the purposes of his party. What thereafter ensued throughout the North cannot be described in any other terms than the mania of a deluded and surging mob. Raw emotion and fanatical hatred of the South was touted as patriotism, while calm reflection and appeals to reason were taken as evidence of treason:

...[T]he cry for the "flag," and for the "Union," was all an hypocrisy and a cheat on the part of the Black Republicans. They had been long known as enemies of the Union, and as despisers of the flag of our country....
* * * * *The war was gotten up with as much trick and skill in management as a showman uses to get the populace to visit his menagerie. Our whole country was placarded all over with war posters of all colors and sizes. Drums were beating and bands playing at every corner of the streets. Nine-tenths of all the ministers of the Gospel were praying and preaching to the horrible din of the war-music, and the profane eloquence of slaughter.
* * * * *There was little chance for any man to exercise his reason, and if he attempted such a thing he was knocked down and sometimes murdered. If an editor ventured to appeal to the Constitution, his office was either destroyed by the mob, or his paper suspended by "the order of the Government."
* * * * *...The historian of these shameful and criminal events needs no other proof that the managers of the war knew that they were perpetrating a great crime than the fact that they refused to allow any man to reason or speak in opposition to their action. The cause of truth and justice always flourishes most with all the reasoning that argument and controversy can give it. Whenever men attempt to suppress argument and free speech, we may be sure that they know their cause to be a bad one.(15)

It was not until the end of the war that the truth about who was really responsible for the Fort Sumter affair began to come to light, but by then it was too late — the scheme to destroy the constitutional Union had succeeded.


1. Horton, History of the Great Civil War, pages 71-72. 

2. The Statutes at Large of South Carolina (Columbia, South Carolina: A.S. Johnston, 1836), Volume V, page 501. 

3. Congressional Globe (Thirty-Sixth Congress, Second Session), 13 December 1860, page 86. 

4. Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume I, page 211. 

5. Stephen Douglas, speech in the Senate on 15 March 1861; Congressional Globe (Thirty-Sixth Congress, Second Session), page 1459. 

6. Robert Selph Henry, The Story of the Confederacy (New York: Garden City Publishing Company, 1931), pages 19, 33. 

7. Robert Toombs, quoted by Burton J. Hendrick, Statesmen of the Lost Cause: Jefferson Davis and His Cabinet (New York: The Literary Guild of America, Inc., 1939), page 106. 

8. Chamber's Journal, 5 December 1863; quoted by Adams, In the Course of Human Events, page 17. 


9. Lincoln, quoted by Orville H. Browning, Diary (Springfield, Illinois: Illinois State Historical Library, 1933; edited by Theodore C. Pease and James G. Randall), entry for 3 July 1861. 

10. Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, Volume IV, page 44. 

11. Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania) Daily Gazette, 18 April 1861. 

12. Joseph Lane, Congressional Globe (Thirty-Sixth Congress, Second Session), page 1347. 

13. Lincoln, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Volume VII, page 3223. 

14. New York Express, 15 April 1861; quoted by Rutherford, Truths of History, page 9. 

15. Horton, History of the Great Civil War, pages 113-114. 




54th
 

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
A different look at the Fort Sumter incident

http://www.crownrights.com/blog/ebook/eleven.htm
South Carolina had freely ceded property in Charleston Harbor to the federal Government in 1805, upon the express condition that "the United States... within three years... 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." Failure to comply with this condition on the part of the Government would render "this grant or cession... void and of no effect."(2)
54th
Greg Durand forgot that the story does not end at 1836, which is the date of the citation above. He got his information from a book published in 1836. I checked.

"2. The Statutes at Large of South Carolina (Columbia, South Carolina: A.S. Johnston, 1836), Volume V, page 501."

Durand did not even provide the primary source document to back this up and he conveniently failed to cite later primary sources concerning Fort Sumter's ownership. Did not Beowolf often cite Greg Durand's AC?

That is fine, because I will do it for you again. I posted this for you on 9/19/09. Did you bother to read it?

Posted by Freddy:

"Here is the document concerning ownership of Fort Sumter which I posted on another thread. Someone had claimed falsely that South Carolina owned it. I replied, "Not after South Carolina ceded it to the US."
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."


Do you agree that December 31, 1836 comes after 1805?

Do you agree that this primary source document from the South Carolina legislature in 1836 supercedes a supposed primary source document from 1805, both of which concern ownership of Fort Sumter?

Do you agree that whatever the South Carolina legislature did in 1805 was nullified by what it did in 1836 concerning the ownership of Fort Sumter?
 

OpnOlympic

Cadet
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
662
How many times has this board broken up this particular neo-confederate Hobby-Horse?
 

the54thmass

Banned
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
278
Location
South Carolina
Greg Durand forgot that the story does not end at 1836, which is the date of the citation above. He got his information from a book published in 1836. I checked.

"2. The Statutes at Large of South Carolina (Columbia, South Carolina: A.S. Johnston, 1836), Volume V, page 501."

Durand did not even provide the primary source document to back this up and he conveniently failed to cite later primary sources concerning Fort Sumter's ownership. Did not Beowolf often cite Greg Durand's AC?

That is fine, because I will do it for you again. I posted this for you on 9/19/09. Did you bother to read it?

Posted by Freddy:

"Here is the document concerning ownership of Fort Sumter which I posted on another thread. Someone had claimed falsely that South Carolina owned it. I replied, "Not after South Carolina ceded it to the US."
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."


Do you agree that December 31, 1836 comes after 1805?

Do you agree that this primary source document from the South Carolina legislature in 1836 supercedes a supposed primary source document from 1805, both of which concern ownership of Fort Sumter?

Do you agree that whatever the South Carolina legislature did in 1805 was nullified by what it did in 1836 concerning the ownership of Fort Sumter?
This is very curious.

You don't say what the letter was in reference to, nor why this came about.

You also don't seem to notice that it was the property of South Carolina to give awayin the first instance...

Perhaps this is what was missing from the Beowulf conversation to which you allude, or the Battalion conversation Johann presented.


Now, following a logical conclusion, then, if the state of South Carolina is in a Union it cannot escape from, with these United States...

And the US is their overlord...

Is not all of the land of SC in the property of the US government, by virtue of this compact/treaty/constitution?

If the federal government had wanted the land, it could have just taken it!

Could it not?

But wait. Read what you write here...


"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.


So, this Mr. Laval and 'others', then, will be paid for their claim to the land... and SC shall 'extinguish' their claims to the land. If their claims be valid, they will be recompensed. If not, they will be 'avoided'.

Do you realize what you have done, Freddy?

You have just declared that the state of South Carolina has the power over Fort Sumter to decide ownership, even in the face of rightful owners, and give, or take away, with compensation, that exact piece of land.


Because it is all a part of South Carolina... and it always will be. Just like the land that was reassumed during secession! It belongs to South Carolina, not any imaginary Federal government!


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


There were persons there implicated by law, who were trespassing. Namely an AWOL group from Fort Moultrie under Major Anderson's command. They were trespassing because they did not have the owner's (the US military's) permission, in the form of orders, to be there. (They were also wanted in connection with a vandalism to Fort Moultrie, which the SC government discreetly nolle-prossed).

Now there was some back-pedaling later on that issue (there always is. like the Congress rubber-stamping Lincoln as having been correct in all that he doeth...).

I did not see a subsequent dispatch from Floyd stating that he now understood that he had given Anderson permission to move freely about the harbor, stirring up the Charlestonians in this fashion, and for no good reason...

I have not seen the note saying that Floyd gave him that permission, period...

I probably never will. It is just 'assumed' to exist, I suppose.

Sort of like the law against secession from the Union.

But in displaying this eminent domain (and I did see a fight over that somewhere on here, but have not read it yet)
it appears to me to prove that South Carolina had this power against its tax-exempt owner, the US government.

So South Carolina, in issuing a criminal process against Anderson's men for armed trespass, and for basically a breach of the peace, decided that the ownership of the US government fell foul of the 1836 stipulations for ownership of the fort. SC did not immediately resume ownership of the fort, but instead sough to have the US government act in accordance with the requirements to continue that ownership, legally.

The US refused to comply with their ownership requirements for possession of the fort.
In short, the US was guilty of allowing an armed trespass onto the property for an intended threat to the harbor, (and later tries to say that it was 'so ordered', somehow...) and because of this, process was served to the fort, asking Anderson and the US to leave, cease, and desist.

When this was not complied with, and when the ships showed up, South Carolina immediately and quite legally resumed ownership of Fort Sumter, destroyed their own property, after giving due notice to the 'starving' hobo transients inside to evacuate before remodeling began.

Thanks for clearing all of that up for me, Freddy!


54th


(Now, from 1836 to 1860, the fort there still is not finished...

So much for the US and their 'land'!)
 

OpnOlympic

Cadet
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
662
What part of "The state shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this state, to the land ceded." does 54thmass Not understand?(my emphasis)
 

the54thmass

Banned
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
278
Location
South Carolina
What part of "The state shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this state, to the land ceded." does 54thmass Not understand?(my emphasis)
The State of South Carolina. Here again, you see the state as
still being in the Union, and the Secessionists (not Confederates immediately, being the first state to do so...)
being the combinations too powerful to suppress.

South Carolina left the Union.

They were offering to compensate for the US ownership of the fort.

They were rejected.

But when the US failed to live up to the terms of the 1836 agreement, the land reverted back to South Carolina.

The US was given a few hours notice, after a few months
knowledge that this would be the case.

No, I think I got it.

So long as the US was not violating the terms of peace in the harbor, they could legally own the land.

But that violation of the armistice, as well as a breach of the peace, became armed trespass upon the state of SC.

And that was handled through remodeling of the fort.

54th
 

OpnOlympic

Cadet
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
662
54thmass arguments are based on a historical fallacy. S.C. was not and never had been out of the Union. Every argument that flows from that fallacy is falacious.
 

whitworth

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
2,514
The U.S. Constitution

Article I Section 8

"Congress shall have the power . . . To exercise the exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, . . .
and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which same shall be, for the erection of Forts, Magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needed buildings; . . ."


"Congress shall have the power . . . to suppress insurrections . . ."

These were powers, given under the U.S. Constitution to Congress and not states.

Thereby the Congress could rule under that Constitution that firing on federal troops in a federal fort or installation, was insurrection.
We note that the constitution of the insurrection party ceased to exist in 1865.
 

matthew mckeon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
13,744
Article I Section 8

"Congress shall have the power . . . To exercise the exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, . . .
and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which same shall be, for the erection of Forts, Magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needed buildings; . . ."


"Congress shall have the power . . . to suppress insurrections . . ."

These were powers, given under the U.S. Constitution to Congress and not states.

Thereby the Congress could rule under that Constitution that firing on federal troops in a federal fort or installation, was insurrection.
We note that the constitution of the insurrection party ceased to exist in 1865.
Did anyone, in 1861, care about this? I'm just curious. Did Governor Pickens, or General Beauregard, or anyone make the claim, that because of an irregularity in the deed or what have you, the federal garrison was supposed to vacate? In 1861?No? I didn't think so. I mean, this is almost too lame for words. What possible relevance is this trivia have on the issues of that day? What evidence exists that it even acrossed the minds of any of the actors of the time?
 

matthew mckeon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
13,744
Whitworth, Sorry, my little tirade was in response to this whole "there is some mysterious problem with the deed" nonsense, NOT to what you posted.
 

OpnOlympic

Cadet
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
662
It just shows that even on the most trivial level of discussion, the arguments of most neo-cons still cannot muster much conviction through historical fact or legal precedence.
 

Freddy

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
3,323
Location
Worcester, MA
This is very curious.

You don't say what the letter was in reference to, nor why this came about.

You also don't seem to notice that it was the property of South Carolina to give awayin the first instance...

Perhaps this is what was missing from the Beowulf conversation to which you allude, or the Battalion conversation Johann presented.


Now, following a logical conclusion, then, if the state of South Carolina is in a Union it cannot escape from, with these United States...

And the US is their overlord...

Is not all of the land of SC in the property of the US government, by virtue of this compact/treaty/constitution?

If the federal government had wanted the land, it could have just taken it!

Could it not?

But wait. Read what you write here...


"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.


So, this Mr. Laval and 'others', then, will be paid for their claim to the land... and SC shall 'extinguish' their claims to the land. If their claims be valid, they will be recompensed. If not, they will be 'avoided'.

Do you realize what you have done, Freddy?

You have just declared that the state of South Carolina has the power over Fort Sumter to decide ownership, even in the face of rightful owners, and give, or take away, with compensation, that exact piece of land.


Because it is all a part of South Carolina... and it always will be. Just like the land that was reassumed during secession! It belongs to South Carolina, not any imaginary Federal government!


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


There were persons there implicated by law, who were trespassing. Namely an AWOL group from Fort Moultrie under Major Anderson's command. They were trespassing because they did not have the owner's (the US military's) permission, in the form of orders, to be there. (They were also wanted in connection with a vandalism to Fort Moultrie, which the SC government discreetly nolle-prossed).

Now there was some back-pedaling later on that issue (there always is. like the Congress rubber-stamping Lincoln as having been correct in all that he doeth...).

I did not see a subsequent dispatch from Floyd stating that he now understood that he had given Anderson permission to move freely about the harbor, stirring up the Charlestonians in this fashion, and for no good reason...

I have not seen the note saying that Floyd gave him that permission, period...

I probably never will. It is just 'assumed' to exist, I suppose.

Sort of like the law against secession from the Union.

But in displaying this eminent domain (and I did see a fight over that somewhere on here, but have not read it yet)
it appears to me to prove that South Carolina had this power against its tax-exempt owner, the US government.

So South Carolina, in issuing a criminal process against Anderson's men for armed trespass, and for basically a breach of the peace, decided that the ownership of the US government fell foul of the 1836 stipulations for ownership of the fort. SC did not immediately resume ownership of the fort, but instead sough to have the US government act in accordance with the requirements to continue that ownership, legally.

The US refused to comply with their ownership requirements for possession of the fort.
In short, the US was guilty of allowing an armed trespass onto the property for an intended threat to the harbor, (and later tries to say that it was 'so ordered', somehow...) and because of this, process was served to the fort, asking Anderson and the US to leave, cease, and desist.

When this was not complied with, and when the ships showed up, South Carolina immediately and quite legally resumed ownership of Fort Sumter, destroyed their own property, after giving due notice to the 'starving' hobo transients inside to evacuate before remodeling began.

Thanks for clearing all of that up for me, Freddy!


54th


(Now, from 1836 to 1860, the fort there still is not finished...

So much for the US and their 'land'!)
I am done after this response. William Laval's claim was investigated by the SC AG and found invalid. Even if had been found to be valid SC was only going to pay the claim's worth to Laval. You have heard of eminent domain? Read the document again.

Do you not find it just a little strange that your hero Greg Durand did not include this SC document from 1836 in his claim of ownership of Fort Sumter?

Post a government document showing Fort Sumter belongs to SC or stop the nonsense!
 

the54thmass

Banned
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
278
Location
South Carolina
I am done after this response. William Laval's claim was investigated by the SC AG and found invalid. Even if had been found to be valid SC was only going to pay the claim's worth to Laval. You have heard of eminent domain? Read the document again.

Do you not find it just a little strange that your hero Greg Durand did not include this SC document from 1836 in his claim of ownership of Fort Sumter?

Post a government document showing Fort Sumter belongs to SC or stop the nonsense!
Well, why don't you explain the story about it, if you know, and tell why they did such a thing. And how it came about.

I am all ears! And you won't get a retort from me because I have no idea what this 1836 paper is, nor how to defend against it. You have the floor.

Even Battalion has not checked in, (which gives you the full of the throttle) as he did on the other posts from the other Sumter talks. If this has already been answered there, I did not see it on my recent quick look across the pages...

Pray, continue!

54th
 

Freddy

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
3,323
Location
Worcester, MA
The document is the actual primary source resolutions passed by both houses of the SC legislature in 1836 ceding ownership of Fort Sumter to the US.
 

OpnOlympic

Cadet
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
662
IF 54thmass is Really interested in actually knowing the facts on this matter, then ref. post #3.(54thmass has to work with us on this matter, will have to make an effort to learn, without having to be spoon fed every detail)
 

Mcpherson

Private
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
48
What is curious in this matter is the mood of the era.
SC in 1832 nearly seceded over the Nullification Crisis issues....and then somehow, 4 years later they cede Fort Sumter to the federal government. Why? It doesnt fit the mood of the day nor the attitude of SC towards the federal government.
Someone made the point that Beaurgard, Pickens, etc were not pointing to any violation of this 1836 document when the firing was being debated.....but by the same stroke, Buchanan, Lincoln, et al were not pointing to the validity of any 1836 document. It seems not to be in ANYONE'S discussion points in 1860-61
 

Mcpherson

Private
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
48
Regarding the 1836 document and the ceding of Sumter to the Federal Govt...
Where is this in ANY Fort Sumter book? There have been hundreds written.....where is this SC document referred to in ANY of those works.??
For such an important fact, it should be prominent in any discussion or recount of the events.....it is not.....
 


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