Lost Cause
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2014
Did Lincoln not allegedly have the legal authority to commence the war before the bombardment, as posted by posters in the past?Evidence?
Did Lincoln not allegedly have the legal authority to commence the war before the bombardment, as posted by posters in the past?Evidence?
Your confusion may lie in that you responding to a discussion (post 835) as to why the South needed to unite as quickly as possible once it decided war was inevitable.
The South fired on Fort Sumter because:
1 - their peace commissioners were being ignored by Lincoln
2 - their peace commissioners were being strung along by Stanton
3 - they felt that given 1 and 2 they could not trust the US government to deal with them in good faith
4 - they knew the ships were on the way with provisions and reinforcements for Sumter
5 - it was either fire now while Sumter was lightly manned, or face warships in the harbor and a much larger garrison in the fort.
The attempt to represent us as the _aggressors_ in the conflict which ensued is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun. To have awaited further strengthening of their position by land and naval forces, with hostile purpose now declared, for the sake of having them "fire the first gun," would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired. - Jefferson Davis
Did Lincoln not allegedly have the legal authority to commence the war before the bombardment, as posted by posters in the past?
2 - their peace commissioners were being strung along by Stanton
The South fired on Fort Sumter because:
1 - their peace commissioners were being ignored by Lincoln
2 - their peace commissioners were being strung along by Stanton
3 - they felt that given 1 and 2 they could not trust the US government to deal with them in good faith
4 - they knew the ships were on the way with provisions and reinforcements for Sumter
5 - it was either fire now while Sumter was lightly manned, or face warships in the harbor and a much larger garrison in the fort.
The attempt to represent us as the _aggressors_ in the conflict which ensued is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun. To have awaited further strengthening of their position by land and naval forces, with hostile purpose now declared, for the sake of having them "fire the first gun," would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired. - Jefferson Davis
You did not answer my question.
The presidential election of 1860 culminated more than a decade of increasing sectional conflict between the North and South, and, simultaneously, precipitated a new crisis that ultimately severed the Union. The election of the Republican Party's candidate, Abraham Lincoln, on November 6, 1860, began a chain of events that included the secession of seven deep South states the establishment of the Confederate States of America at Montgomery, Alabama, and the assumption of authority over federal property, such as customhouses and forts. The Confederacy's attempt to extend its sovereignty over forts that remained in Union hands, notably Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor and Fort Pickens at Pensacola, Florida, placed the rival governments on a collision course. These events transpired in the approximately 120 days between Lincoln's election in early November and his inauguration on March 4, 1861.
@NedBaldwin I'm just looking to see where the Confederates themselves gave some sort of account for why they fired. Davis gives more details about the circumstances that led up to the decision from his point of view and they can be found at the linked speech. I think the most relevant portion, from a strictly military standpoint, is that Davis told Congress he thought the fort and the relief fleet would both be firing at Confederate troops in the harbor, and he felt it was necessary to capture the fort before that could happen.
Davis was actually quite clear that he did NOT expect the U.S. government to launch any kind of attack anywhere as long as the border states were in play, and that it might be to the Confederates' advantage to force their hand:
"It is scarcely to be doubted that for political reasons the U.S. Govt. will avoid making an attack so long as the hope of retaining the border states remains. There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations."I would appreciate hearing your take on this. Thank you.
- Jefferson Davis to Braxton Bragg, April 3, 1861
Source: <<http://books.google.com/books?id=7j1rLgwgO-4C&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85
You will perceive that it is upon the presumption that it is solely as property that you continue to hold Fort Sumter, that I have been selected for the performance of the duty upon which I have entered. I do not come as a military man to demand the surrender of a fortress, but as the legal officer of a State -- its Attorney-General, to claim for the State the exercise of its undoubted right of eminent domain, and to pledge the State to make good all injury to the rights of property which arise from the exercise of the claim. South Carolina, as a separate, independent sovereign, assumes the right to take into her own possession everything within her limits essential to maintain her honor or her safety, irrespective of the questions of property, subject only to the moral duty requiring that compensation should be made to the owner.
The proposal then, now presented, is simply an offer on the part of South Carolina to buy Fort Sumter and contents as property of the United States, sustained by a declaration, in effect, that if she is not permitted to purchase she will seize the fort by force of arms. As the initiation of a negotiation for the transfer of property between friendly Governments, this proposal impresses the President as having assumed a most unusual form. He has, however, investigated the claim on which it professes to be based, apart from the declaration which accompanies it. And it may be hero remarked that much stress has been laid upon the employment of the words "property" and "public property," by the President in his several Messages. These are the most comprehensive terms which can be used in such a connection, and surely when referring to a fort, or any other public establishment, they embrace the entire and undivided interest of the Government therein. The title of the United States to Fort Sumter is complete and incontestible. Were its interests in this property purely proprietary, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, it might probably be subjected to the exercise of the right of eminent domain; but it has also political relations to it of a much higher and more imposing character than those of mere proprietorship. It has absolute jurisdiction over the fort and the soil on which it stands. This jurisdiction consists in the authority to "exercise exclusive legislation" over the property referred to; and is, therefore, clearly incompatible with the claim of eminent domain now insisted upon by South Carolina. This authority was not derived from any questionable revolutionary source, but from the peaceful cession of South Carolina herself, acting through her Legislature under a provision of the Constitution of the United States. South Carolina can no more assert the right of eminent domain over Fort Sumter than Maryland can assert it over the District of Columbia. The political and proprietary rights of the United States in either case rest upon precisely the same ground.
The right is an inherent power of the sovereign and exists in a sovereign state without any specific recognition. It comes into existence with the establishment of government and continues as long as the government endures. However, its exercise may be constitutionally limited[vi]. The Fifth Amendment merely prohibits the government from taking property without paying just compensation. It prevents the legislature from depriving private persons of vested property rights except for a public use and upon payment of just compensation[vii].
It is to be noted that under the power of eminent domain, the sovereign can take or damage private property for a public purpose upon payment of just compensation. On the other hand, the police power is the power which the state inherently has to restrict the use of property without paying compensation by valid regulations intending to promote public health, safety, morals, and general welfare.
a right of a government to take private property for public use by virtue of the superior dominion of the sovereign power over all lands within its jurisdiction
De jure and de facto
De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. Cooperation and respect of the populace; control of resources in, or moved into, an area; means of enforcement and security; and ability to carry out various functions of state all represent measures of de facto sovereignty.