By January 10, 1861, three states had already declared secession from the United States. Mississippi has declared Secession on January 9th, the day before, Florida was in the process of seceding as Davis spoke, Alabama would secede the very next day.
I think Rockrr & I were looking for something a bit more diligent and respectful of the other states from these so-called southern leaders.
You want bowing, scraping, groveling, and apologizing for his state exercising powers reserved under the Tenth Amendment and asking to go in peace with the same rights they had when they became a state? Don't hold your breath. Would our founders have apologized to the king for the Declaration of Independence?
I ran across another offer to pay for the forts. This one from Senator Hunter of Virginia. That brings the total to four offers that I know of (SC Commissioners, Hayne, CSA Commissioners, and now Hunter). Davis also made a proposal. [Source: Baltimore Sun editorial, January 5, 1861]
The resolutions presented to the Senate by Mr. Hunter and Mr. Davis are designed to facilitate an amicable settlement of the points in dispute on this aspect of the question. Mr. Hunter, in effect, provides for the resurrender to States of lands which they respectively ceded for the purposes of the general government; compensation being made to the latter by the States for property erected or deposited thereon. Mr. Davis, again, develops a plan by which federal troops may be withdrawn from States on the requisition of a Legislature or convention; subject to adequate provision for the protection of federal property. The two propositions are in perfect harmony, and both tend to the maintenance of peace.
Except on the supposition that the seceding states are to be invaded by federal forces, subjugated, and reunited to the confederacy against their will, what use will the general government have for forts and arsenals situated in another sovereignty? But as this idea of subjugation is at once absurd and barbarous, what can be said in defense of a policy which would retain means of aggression in the midst of another and an independent people? That the States themselves would object to having in their very center menaces upheld by the Union they have left, is not at all surprising. And hence on both sides are motives to the adoption of some friendly arrangement. The States will not allow their own forts to be turned against them; and the general government will have no need of forts in districts over which it has no longer jurisdiction.