Declaration Foundation's Lincoln Day Message

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

[4CJ]

Regardless of when it was done, the end of slavery in the United States would not have been easy or, in all probability, peaceful.

So compensated emancipation would be worse than a war that killed 623,000 Americans?

[4CJ]

Sorry I took so long responging to the latter (the terms of the cession). I lost my hard drive :o( with what documentation I had. Most I had backed up, but this was newer.

In 1805 the State of SC ceded the property to the federal government with the stipulation that the property would revert to SC if the following conditions were not met:
existing fort and/or new forts had to be built (completed) within three years
fully garrisoned at all times/never abandoned

If either of these conditions were not met the properties in question reverted back to the state. This 1805 cession was referenced as applicable in the cession of the shoal were Fort Sumpter was built.

The federal government failed to abide by the terms of the cession, the properties in question legally belonged to the State of South Carolina.

[Non-Sequitur]

So compensated emancipation would be worse than a war that killed 623,000 Americans?

Compensated emancipation was an idea with limited support up North and zero support down south. Even if Lincoln had campaigned on a plan for compensated emacipation what would have changed? The south would still have viewed him as a threat to the insitution of slavery and would no doubt have entered into their rebellion regardless, especially since y'all keep insisting that it wasn't about slavery to begin with.

[Non-Sequitur]

Are you sure of those timelines? The first soundings for a location for Sumter were not undertaken until 1827 and the first work on creating the man-made island didn't begin until 1829.

I've heard of the legislation you mention but I've never seen it. I have problems with it since it seems to fly in the face of the Constitution which says that the government will have exculsive legislation over property obtained with the consent of state legislatures for the purpose of building forts, magazines, arsenals, etc. Your 1805 law indicates that it was done with the consent of legislature. And regardless it would seem that any earlier laws would be superceded by the act of the South Carolina legislature passed in 1836: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.

[4CJ]

Are you sure of those timelines? The first soundings for a location for Sumter were not undertaken until 1827 and the first work on creating the man-made island didn't begin until 1829.

I'll have to dig up the link (in might have been in the American State Records), but the 1836 cession after resolution of Laval's claim was ceded under the terms of the 1805 cession agreement.

Your 1805 law indicates that it was done with the consent of legislature.

It was. One of the conditions of the cession was that the SC governor inform the federal legislature of the terms, which he did, and was noted had occurred in the congressional record. Several other states had also issued similar cessions, two are documented in Jefferson Davis' Rise & Fall, along with the SC 1805 cession.

[Non-Sequitur]

...but the 1836 cession after resolution of Laval's claim was ceded under the terms of the 1805 cession agreement.

If you are correct then under the terms of the 1805 agreement the land had reverted back to South Carolina in 1808 since nothing had been done on the fort. So that would mean that the whole issue started from scratch and the terms of the 1836 document apply. And that document makes it clear that the state was deeding the property free and clear to the United States and was ceding all rights, titles, and claims to the property. The only restriction was that it couldn't be used to shield people from civil or criminal processes.

[4CJ]

So that would mean that the whole issue started from scratch and the terms of the 1836 document apply.

Which incorporated the terms of the 1805 cession. The Fort was not completed even by 1860, nor was it garrisoned.

[Non-Sequitur]

Which incorporated the terms of the 1805 cession.

Where? The 1836 document does not reference any earlier agreement, nor does it give the restrictions that you claim were in place in 1805.

[4CJ]

Where? The 1836 document does not reference any earlier agreement, nor does it give the restrictions that you claim were in place in 1805.

I stated I lost my hard drive, and this information. Don't worry though, I found it once and will find it again [the 1836 cession].

The state of South Carolina in their 1805 cession:

That, if the United States shall not, within three years from the passing of this act, and notification thereof by the Governor of this State to the Executive of the United States, repair the fortifications now existing thereon or build such other forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein; in such case this grant or cession shall be void and of no effect.

Davis documented this, and similar stipulations in various cession agreements by Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia on pages 179-180 of his Rise And Fall of The Confederate Government

[Non-Sequitur]

What possible impact could the 1805 document have on Sumter. In 1805 there were no existing fortifications on the site to repair, it was under water. There was no place to keep a garrison and nothing was under construction. In light of that any property deeded to the United States at that time by the state of South Carolina should have reverted to the state. But we're talking 22 years into the future. The agreement on Sumter should be governed by the 1836 agreement which contains none of the same provisions.

And if Davis believes that the 1805 agreement is binding, then as a former Army officer he should have seen the idiocy of such an agreement. Forts like Sumter were never built in as short a time as three years.