Declaration Foundation's Lincoln Day Message

Declaration Foundation ^ | Feb. 12th, 2003 | rdf

[rdf]

February 12th
FROM THE PRESIDENT'S DESK

Fellow Declarationists,

Today is Abraham Lincoln's 194th Birthday.

I wish to honor him by sharing a few reflections about his Second Inaugural Address, given on March 4th, 1865.

[WhiskeyPapa]

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.

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. In November, 1834, after the Untied States had expended roughly $200,000, a person named Major William Laval, Esq., claimed title to the land which included the under-construction fort.

A South Carolina statute passed in 1791 established a method by which the state disposed of its vacant lands (we tend to forget that much of the territory of the states was empty in the Nineteenth Century: in the original thirteen states, this land was held by the states; in the remaining part of the country, it was held by the Federal government, except in Texas, where the public lands were retained by the state when it was admitted). Laval used the law to claim title to the land but he described it in a vague manner and given the lack of decent maps of any of the country, his vagueness hid the exact location of the tract he claimed.

When Laval appeared on the scene, he Corps of Engineers stopped work and asked for instructions. It appeared that Laval had filed a proper claim for the land except that the land was below low tide and therefore exempt from purchase.

Well South Carolina was aghast! They did not want to lose the fort to protect themselves, nor the payrolls that would come with the completed fort.

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 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.

Poor Maj. Laval lost his scheme to blackmail the United States!

For those wishing to further pursue the ownership of Fort Sumter, et. al, most college and university libraries will have American State Papers: Documents Legislative and Executive of the Congress of the United States, Military Affairs, vol. 5, Twenty-third Congress, Second Session, No. 591, The Construction of Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina,pp. 463-472.

The War Department became concerned in the 1890s that they might not have clear title to all of their various installations, so they had a civilian attorney in the Judge Advocate General's office research the chain of title. Fortunately for us, not only were the various National Cemeteries still War Department properties, but so were most of the forts used in the early Republic, the Civil War and the Indian Wars.

The result was James B. McCrellis, Military Reservations, National Military Parks, and National Cemeteries. Title and Jurisdiction, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1898. If you can not locate a hard copy, CIS has copied McCrellis on microfiche: U.S. Executive Branch Documents, 1789-1909: War Department, W 1002.8.

-- from the moderated ACW newsgroup.

Walt

[4CJ]

1)When did construction of the Fort begin? 1829
2)When did construction end? Further work was abandoned when the confederate government seized it.
3)When was the Fort garrisoned? Major Anderson moved his entire command there on December 26, 1860. Prior to that civilian workmen had been supervided by an Army officer.
4)What were the terms of the cession?I'm not aware that any terms were agreed to.

Would agree that the construction of the fort was not completed?
Would you agree that from inception to non-completion was a period of more than 30 years?
Would you agree that the fort had not been garrisoned until Anderson occupied it in 1860?

Pardon me, but before we progress to the terms, the preceeding should be resolved.

[Non-Sequitur]

Pardon me, but before we progress to the terms, the preceeding should be resolved.

I'll concede the first two, but 'garrison' is a relative term. The work on the fort was done under the supervision of an officer from the Corps of Engineers so Army occupation was continuous.

[Zack Nguyen]

That's a lie, as Lincoln refused to even meet with the peace commissioners from the Confederacy...

Good for him. I wouldn't have met with them either. What they wanted was to negotiate with Lincoln the permanent split of our country, and to condemn blacks to untold decades of slavery and bondage. That is not "peace."

[4CJ]

[B]ut 'garrison' is a relative term. The work on the fort was done under the supervision of an officer from the Corps of Engineers so Army occupation was continuous.

I understand the distinction relating to "garrisoned" (by 5, 85, or 3,000), but would a single officer from the Corps of Engineers constitute a garrison?. With your military experience, if the CiC asked you to garrison a position, how many men would be placed?

[Zack Nguyen]

What the South wanted was the freedom to govern themselves in blatant contradiction to the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

[4CJ]

[T]o condemn blacks to untold decades of slavery and bondage. That is not "peace."

It's not war - slavery ended peacefully in numerous other countries without waging war. In two countries even after Lincoln's war. And if the intent of the union was to abolish slavery, why didn't the United Stated invade other countries to end the practice, and why hasn't it invaded countries which practice slavery now?

If the preceding was justification for ending slavery, would that have justified England invading the US to end it before the war?

[Zack Nguyen]

I think your analogy is wrong. England is not in the United States. Neither are these other countries of which you speak. Slavery was happening in America, and that is unacceptable. Frankly I find highly suspect the notion that somehow slavery would have "died off" in a "short" period of time if Lincoln would have just "let things take their course." A feeling of inherent superiority amongst Southern whites was deeply ingrained.

[4CJ]

I think your analogy is wrong. England is not in the United States. Neither are these other countries of which you speak.

On one hand you argue that it was to end slavery - since the south seceding would have continued it you assert that the union had the right to prevent it, yet if the confederacy had remained in the union, there was no power to end it. In fact, there would have to be 52 states in the Union today to end it via amendment (to counter the 13 Confederate states). If the south invaded Rhode Island & Providence Plantations, Connecticutt, Massachusetts or New York to end the slave trade, would that be justified?

Slavery was happening in America, and that is unacceptable.

The framers protected it and allowed it to perpetuate. The founders, when declaring their independence from Britain also possesed slaves, but I have yet to see a single Lincolnite attempting to denigrate that separation.

[4CJ]

And understand that I am not advocating slavery - it was how it was ended.

Frankly I find highly suspect the notion that somehow slavery would have "died off" in a "short" period of time if Lincoln would have just "let things take their course."

Think what you will, but that does not change the fact that it did end peacefully in numerous countries, almost always coinciding with industrialization.

A feeling of inherent superiority amongst Southern whites was deeply ingrained.

No more so that that held by Northern whites. The world was full of racial bigots at that time, including blacks that considered themselves above the poor "white trash" in the South.

[Zack Nguyen]

Of course you are not advocating slavery. I leave that to Islamic fundamentalists in the Sudan. And, as a Southerner, I find Northern racism and holier-than-thou regard for the South a little hard to bear just as you do.

When slavery would have died out is entirely open to conjecture. The fact is that some, thank God, were not willing to wait to find out. The blacks that were in chains, I imagine, would not have been in favor of waiting for the industrialization of the South to see if they would have been freed.

There are some that argue that slavery was not the primary issue in the Civil War. Though I agree that there were other issues (but I maintain that slavery was preeminent), slavery alone would have been enough reason to send troops.

[Zack Nguyen]

I am simply saying that no one forced the Confederacy to leave the Union and attempt to maintain the institution of slavery. I think the use of force to free black slaves was entirely justified. The basis of Southern secession was immoral to begin with.

Some Founders owned slaves and that was wrong. The American Revolution, however, was not begun over slavery, so I fail to see the connection. It would be unfair to say that they all perpetuated it, however, as there were many Founders who were against the practice.

For that matter, Robert E. Lee found slavery personally deplorable. One of the most moving tragedies of American history is, in my opinion, that a thoroughly decent, brilliant, and God-fearing General fought for the wrong side. I understand his devotion to his state, but that doesn't change the fact of history.

Incidentally, this is why I will be first in line at Gods and Generals.

[4CJ]

The blacks that were in chains, I imagine, would not have been in favor of waiting for the industrialization of the South to see if they would have been freed.

But not all were in chains, or had a terrible life. Heck, lots of whites had a terrible life, I had ancestors that were indentured servants - little more than slaves themselves. Many slaves earned money, some donating it to the Confederate government, and others fought for the Confederacy. I will not begin to denigrate their service as is the manner of some - regardless of the reason they fought, they fought for what they believed. And in the rose-colored glasses worn by many, it obviously was something other than slavery.

[S]lavery alone would have been enough reason to send troops.

Why, if the Constitution allowed it? I wish that they had passed an amendment that ended it, and that the events leading to secession never happened. As a southerner, I'm sure you are quite familiar with the existing bad-blood that lingers today, and the racism and holier-than-thou regard for the South you aptly describe. Would that be there if the war & Reconstruction hadn't happened?

[Zack Nguyen]

As a southerner, I'm sure you are quite familiar with the existing bad-blood that lingers today, and the racism and holier-than-thou regard for the South you aptly describe. Would that be there if the war & Reconstruction hadn't happened?

No it would not. But again, I would be willing to risk all rather than allow a race to be held in bondage within the borders of America. You seem to be soft-pedaling the condition of blacks under slavery. No rational observer would hint that they were doing just fine under white domination.

[4CJ]

But again, I would be willing to risk all rather than allow a race to be held in bondage within the borders of America. You seem to be soft-pedaling the condition of blacks under slavery. No rational observer would hint that they were doing just fine under white domination.

They had done so since the founding without armed invasion. But I'm not supporting the institution, it was an evil, it's just that your position would grant the federal government the power to invade a sovereign state or states at will, under any pretext or condition, to end any legal practice that it disagrees with.

And if that is true why have a Constitution at all?

[Non-Sequitur]

With your military experience, if the CiC asked you to garrison a position, how many men would be placed?

As many as it took. But if your definition of garrison is an armed body of men defending the fort then no, it wasn't garrisoned until December 1860. But the construction efforts were ongoing under the supervision of the Army engineers. Now, what's your point?

[Non-Sequitur]

It's not war - slavery ended peacefully in numerous other countries without waging war. In two countries even after Lincoln's war.

In every single case of slavery's demise, it took government action to do it and it was done in the face of strenuous opposition from the slave holders themselves. Regardless of when it was done, the end of slavery in the United States would not have been easy or, in all probability, peaceful.

[#3Fan]

But not all were in chains, or had a terrible life. Heck, lots of whites had a terrible life, I had ancestors that were indentured servants - little more than slaves themselves. Many slaves earned money, some donating it to the Confederate government, and others fought for the Confederacy. I will not begin to denigrate their service as is the manner of some - regardless of the reason they fought, they fought for what they believed. And in the rose-colored glasses worn by many, it obviously was something other than slavery.

You guys always try to say that slavery is no big deal. Will you volunteer to be my slave to prove it?

[Zack Nguyen]

But I'm not supporting the institution, it was an evil, it's just that your position would grant the federal government the power to invade a sovereign state or states at will, under any pretext or condition, to end any legal practice that it disagrees with.

Not "any legal practice" and not just when it "disagrees", but rather when states laws are in blatant disregard to the principles of the law or, in this case, the law of God. I would have supported the use of troops to force the end of Jim Crow in the 1950's and to ensure that blacks had the right to vote. The South had made it abundantly clear that slavery and, later, Jim Crow, would end no other way. I would not support troops for just any old reason.

[4CJ]

Will you volunteer to be my slave to prove it?

Sure, if I get to drive around the race track.