Replies

Overlooking for a moment the fact that from the viewpoint of the administration Sumter was a U.S. fort in a U.S. city in a U.S. state, neither South Carolina or any other state holds title over federal property. Sumter was built on property deeded to the United States free and clear by an act of the South Carolina legislature. By transferring ownership the South Carolina government gave up all control over the property because Constitutionally on Congress can exercise authority over federal facilities. And that includes disposing of them.

By that logic, because Virginia ceded Alexandria to the Federal District, the Federal government still holds title to the entirety of that city. Yet, that's not the case. (Yes, I know, the Federal government sold Alexandria back to Virginia due to multiple reasons, so of course it's not as cut and dry as I describe it.) According to the Northwest Ordinance, the original colonies are granted exclusive title to the land within their borders, in exchange for their cession of claims against western land, and their transfer of primary jurisdiction of said western lands to the Confederacy, followed by the reorganized Federal government.

Under common law at the time, when you hold original title to the land, and you no longer recognize the authority of the Federal government to sit on that land, the title to that land would indeed transfer back to the state.

Ironically, it would appear that according to the Northwest Ordinance, no state created from these original Western lands [Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota] have any right of secession, as Congress (a) declares that the Western lands are forever to remain in the Confederacy of the United States, and (b) that Congress shall hold primary disposal of Western lands.

Art. 4. The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto. The inhabitants and settlers...The legislatures of those districts or new States, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers.

(I'm looking at finding the reference where the original colonies were granted full title to land within their borders, but it doesn't seem to be in here. Perhaps I am thinking of another Act, which I'll promptly go and find!)

On another side of the issue, is it appropriate for the Federal government to turn the guns of the forts, which were built to defend South Carolina from foreign invaders, inland towards Charleston?

I can't speak for the people of South Carolina and what they saw as justification. I can only say that South Carolina had no legal claim to Sumter, and their act of firing on it was an act of armed rebellion against the central government. And they paid the price for their decision.

How was it an act of armed rebellion against the central government, if the State government no longer recognized the authority of the central government? Under the American Federal system, the authority of government orginally began at the local/individual level, and via grants made first to the State government, and then via grants from the State to the Federal government*. And seeing how (a), South Carolina was not threatening to invade the District of Columbia, and (b) there were no threats to the other States in the nation by the independence of South Carolina, where was the rebellion?

(* Of course, with the changes made to our government beyond the end of the Civil War, this is no longer the case. The Federal Government has proven to us that it is our Sovereign, and that we should serve it with our entire servitude.)

Ok, I found where my supposition that the Federal Government ceded all claim to land in the original colonies came from, though I have not located the legislation yet.

From http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/FAQ.asp,

Q. Why are there no public lands in the thirteen colonies and other states in the east?
A. In the very early years of the United States, the Congress of the Confederation declared it would sell or grant the unclaimed lands in "the West" (given up by the States to the United States) for the common benefit of the United States. The States gave up their claims to what is now Alabama, Michigan, part of Minnesota, Mississippi, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The United States could then sell this unclaimed land to raise money for the Treasury. In turn, the United States gave up its claims to any land within the boundaries of the Colonies.

I'll continue looking through the Journals of the Confederation Congress to see if I can find the Act that brought this about.

By that logic, because Virginia ceded Alexandria to the Federal District, the Federal government still holds title to the entirety of that city.

I don't see how any logic can come to that conclusion. States and the government exercise complete control over the property that they own. States may deed property to the federal government, as South Carolina did with the land Sumter was built on. The federal government may return control of property to the states, as Congress did with Georgetown in 1846. Nothing in the Constitution prevents that.

According to the Northwest Ordinance, the original colonies are granted exclusive title to the land within their borders, in exchange for their cession of claims against western land, and their transfer of primary jurisdiction of said western lands to the Confederacy, followed by the reorganized Federal government.

OK. I'm not sure I'm following your point here. Are you saying that the states could not sell or deed property to the federal government? That would run counter to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 wouldn't it?

I'm afraid I would have to disagree with you on that one. South Carolina passed the following piece of legislation in 1836:

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.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. South Carolina gave up all rights, title, and claims to the property. It was in every and all legal respect the property of the federal government. And as such could be disposed of only through an act of Congress.

How was it an act of armed rebellion against the central government, if the State government no longer recognized the authority of the central government?

Isn't that what rebellion is to begin with? Refusal to recognize the authority of the central government and waging an armed conflict against it? The only way that it could not have been rebellion was if the southern acts of unilateral secession were legal. They were not.