Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur
And why was it no longer the Union's to hold? Because South Carolina said so? Fort Sumter was located on property deeded to the U.S. by the legislature of South Carolina. It was constructed on a man-made island. Made, by the way, from granite shipped down from New England. It was the property of the U.S. government.

Now here you have a point. Ownership does not make for sovereignty however.

I've always wondered how it would have gone over if South Carolina had demanded the property taxes for the Fort. Would the US have paid? It would have been interesting to see how the county sheriff coming out to evict Major Anderson would have been handled rather than a military attack. Would the US have fired on local civil officials? And if they did, would it have been received as badly in the north as the cannonade was received? In any event, a slightly humorous mental picture.
167 posted on 07/04/2003 12:39:18 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies ]


To: Arkinsaw
I've always wondered how it would have gone over if South Carolina had demanded the property taxes for the Fort. Would the US have paid? It would have been interesting to see how the county sheriff coming out to evict Major Anderson would have been handled rather than a military attack. Would the US have fired on local civil officials? And if they did, would it have been received as badly in the north as the cannonade was received? In any event, a slightly humorous mental picture.

Alas, South Carolina was not in a position to sell Fort Sumter for back taxes. Otherwise the Civil War would have been the Civil Action (chuckle, snort).

The process that the U.S. used to acquire the land that Fort Sumter was built on was the same process used to acquire any land for the government. And the process was very simple. A state, South Carolina in this instance, through its members of Congress and its senators, argued that the National Interest required that a fort be built, such as one in the middle of Charleston Harbor. The necessary legislation would pass Congress and be signed by the President. Then the state legislature would pass a law granting title (if the state owned the property) or affirming title (if the land was privately owned) to the United States. It is important to note that then, and now, the government refused to accept property where there was any other restriction. The state gave up all rights it might have in the property. Otherwise Congress would refuse to appropriate the necessary funds to build the installation. The one general exception was a clause inserted to allow state officials to enter the Federal property to seize fugitives from justice or to serve civil process papers. And it is important to note that the title given to the United States was fee simple, with specific notice that the property was exempt from any state or local taxes. Except for the qualification that the property could be entered to seize fugitives, the property passed in perpetuity to the Federal government. Then, as now, states love it when the government pumps money into their cities so the necessary legislation was passed quickly.

So Fort Sumter was the property of the federal government completely and forever, unless the government decided to dispose of it.

168 posted on 07/04/2003 1:18:26 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson