The resolution was sufficient. I don't remember if my original mote included that the reason that the US government wanted clear title in the first place was there was a completing claim on the land. The building of the fort would not continue UNTIL the US had clear title to the land. Everyone at the time knew they had clear title. No one advanced your argument at the time. Don't you remember? The so-called seceded states sent commisioners to try and buy the fort. THEY knew who had title. They just didn't care. The very fact that the fort existed at all proves the title was transferred and that South Carolina had in fact ceded complete title to the government.
There is a very detailed discussion of the title for Fort Sumter at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=sumter+warly&hl=en&rnum=1&selm=e3964cff.0107110828.503758d5%40posting.google.com
If that doesn't work, just go to deja.com and search on "Sumter" and "Warly".
That's what I did.
And you know what the upshot is?
The South Carolinians were no better than common thieves.
You know, it's funny in a way. Many in the north were apathetic about the south's attempt to rend the Union. "Let them go with their slavery and good riddance", many said. Horace Greeley said that a union pinned together with bayonets held no appeal for him.
Firing on Fort Sumter galvanized public opinion in the north. In that, it was much like the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The people who did it were fools.
Walt
Here is additional proof:
One of the suppliers of the quote you present says this:
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides clear instructions about how and under what circumstances the United States government may acquire title to property located within a state:
Congress shall have the Power To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings.
Another argues:
Article I, section 8, clause 17, cited above, is *not*, repeat not, the controlling constitutional provision in Sumter's case. Because I, 8, 17, refers only to Washington D.C., or *purchased* property, it has absolutely no applicability to Sumter. The correct constitutional provision is I, 8, 1, which gives Congress the legislative authority to "provide for the common defense". This legisaltive authority was given statutary expression on March 20, 1794, when Congress promulgated "An act to Provide for the Defense of certain Ports and Harbors in the United States". Section 3 of that act permits the President to receive cessions from the States. Under this act and under certain specified condtions, the South Carolina legislature, in 1805, ceded the properties in Charleston Harbor that would become Sumter.
This was interpreted to require that when any Federal installation was to be built within the boundaries of the state, the government had to purchase the property (unless it lay within the Public Domain) and the state legislature had to pass a law agreeing to the acquisition of the property.
As made perfectly clear, I, 8, 17 has absoultely no relevance to Sumter.
A contributor continues:
The process was very simple: a state would, through its members of Congress and senators, argue 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. 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. Depending upon the property in question there might also be affirmations of the right of eminent domain, i.e., if the private owner was unwilling to sell, the property would be appraised and, under the Fifth Amendment, the government would judicially take title, paying the owner the appraised price. In other cases, the states approval was contingent upon the Federal government using the land.
Sumter was ceded under the coastal protection act of 1794; accordingly it was a voluntary offering, and conditions were very speicifically imposed on the cession.
An example of how this worked will make this clearer:
The Brooklyn Navy Yard. The New York State Legislature voluntarily ceded that property to the Federal Government for the purposes of defense with very specific provisions for reclamation by New York should the US default on the terms.
The same process was followed in the acquisition of the various harbor installations in and around Charleston: Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinckney, Charleston Arsenal and fort Sumter.
Your comment: "In the specific case of Fort Sumter, in 1827, the Secretary of War, a man named John C. Calhoun (!) had approved the construction of a new fort in the harbor. The first appropriations were made by Congress in 1828 and construction started on the harbor shoal."
All of this was irrelevant.
At this time the U.S. was already in default of its agreement. The respect and patriotism of South Carolina prevented them from lawfully reclaiming the property. They offered to buy it back rather than facing a losing proposition of lengthy court battles on the eve of secession.
"The result was a state law:
COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL RELATIONS
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836 The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governors message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on FederalRelations 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....
Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
JACOB WARLY, C. S.
These resolutions augment, and certainly do not supercede, the original conditions and authority of the legislative enactments of 1805.
Sumter was legally owned by South Carolina because of Federal defaults.
And by the way, most of this came from your favorite discussion site, so your sources are also not only wrong, but probably loose with the truth.
You can continue your boorish comments about the South because the bravery of the people of the South was obvious, and the brazen rabble that Lincoln roused to invade the South seem to have some of their offspring lurking around here. Imagine that.