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?
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.
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.
I was just following the logical outcome of the conclusions you were making.
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?
No, I'm not saying that at all. Rather, I'm saying that, while the Federal government is the final arbiter of land ownership in the Northwest Territories (and if one were to look at the legislation incorporating the Louisiana Purchase through every other westward expansion), and the states created out of these Territories could not claim absolute ownership of their land. The original colonies can and did claim that, though.
I'm afraid I would have to disagree with you on that one. South Carolina passed the following piece of legislation in 1836:
Notice some significant features of your citation:
his 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.
Were the "processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of" South Carolina still being executed upon the same? It's not quite as straighforward as you'd make it sound. I agree that an act of Congress certainly would've made the matter much less difficult (and infinitely more honorable), but since that did not happen, I'd venture to say that South Carolina was still entitled to claim the land based on the fact that the Federal government was no longer acting under the civil processes of the State on that land.
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.
In our modern definition of "central government," yes. We have grown up under the results of the Civil War. As a result, I'd say that we have no concept of the original limited government which was intended for us.
The Whiskey Rebellion was what I'd term a true "revolt" or "rebellion." In that case, individuals within the state revolted against Federal authority, and when the State requested that the Federal government assisted them in quelling the unrest, the Federal troops did so. Not without protest, I might add, but the Federal government's actions were lawful in that case.
Another good instance of "rebellion" would be when individual citizens in the State of North Carolina captured Federal forts, while the State was still a participatory member of the United States. The Governor, when he learned of the situation, sent State militia in to recover the forts from these rebellious citizens, and immediately returned control of the forts back over to the Federal government.
In other words, when citizens act without the auspices of civil government, to revolt against the civil government, it's rightfully considered a "Rebellion." A group of citizens, working through the Constitutional means provided to them, cannot be considered as such.
Under the ante bellum Constitution, anyway. All bets are off in modern times.