Posted on 05/01/2017 3:39:29 PM PDT by Timpanagos1
The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the States that were in the Rebellion, not the rest of the Union. The preliminary proclamation was issued in September of 1862, but it didn’t become official until January 1st, 1863.
South Carolina didn’t own the land that Fort Sumter was built on. The State Legislature had deeded it to the Federal Government.
You could bet on it.
You are correct. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves in the United States. Rather, it declared free only those slaves living in states not under Union control. William Seward, Lincoln’s secretary of state, commented:
“We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”
Lincoln was fully aware of the irony, but he did not want to antagonize the slave states loyal to the Union by setting their slaves free. Lincoln was a practical politician.
As for his opinion on blacks:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)
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.
This means that it wasn't South Carolina's to fool with. Pickens knew it (just like you do) but relied on a feckless Buchanan to allow him to steal what clearly didn't belong to him.
Anderson was charged with defending several garrisons, including Sumter. It was his responsibility. He was there by order. He didn't "seize anything because the fortification was in his charge. His orders came from Buell on Dec. 11, 1860:
... you are to hold possession of the forts in this harbor, and if attacked you are to defend yourself to the last extremity. The smallness of your force will not permit you, perhaps, to occupy more than one of the three forts, but an attack on or attempt to take possession of any one of them will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you may deem most proper to increase its power of resistance. You are also authorized to take similar steps whenever you have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act.
So, as you can readily understand, the Union troops that occupied Sumter were under orders to do so, and therefore had a perfect "preeminent right" or "duty" to be there. The rebels did not.
There was no direct payment involved. The terms were that in exchange for tile to the land, that the Government would build a for to protect Charleston. The U.S. Government lived up to their end of the agreement. They built for Sumter on the land deeded to the by the State of South Carolina.
Lincoln understood that he did not have authority to free any slave in a state that was Still in the Union. The Sanford v. Scott decision made by the Supreme Court would not allow Lincoln to take any action to do so.
Good post
I still say that a foreign government can only rightfully occupy territory in a sovereign nation as long as they are invited. Once formally asked to leave, refusal to do so equates to trespassing.
The confederacy was never a sovereign nation. The fort was seized through force of arms and figured prominently into the war that followed.
The operative words are “sovereign nation”. That sovereignty
was not recognized by the United States or by any other sovereign nation in the world. Nor would the Confederacy ever be recognized as a “sovereign nation”
I concur with Bull Snipe’s post #233 and would also recommend researching “dual sovereignty” - a characteristic of the relationship of our sovereign states to our sovereign nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.