Posted on 09/26/2002 6:42:56 PM PDT by tall_tex
It was the states that selectively enforced the Fugitive Slave Act, not the Federal government, so you can hardly blame Washington for that. Tariffs were unjust, but since the North paid 95% of them then the injustice fell on them and not the south. Surely you aren't complaining about that? And other than the perceived threat to the institution of slavery what other interference was there for the south to complain about?
Slavery was legally recognized. Whether it was "legitimate" or not is another story. But it was the law.
IIRC until 1875 all federal property acquired via eminent domain was actually sezied by the state, then transferred to the federal government. In 1875, the decision by Justice Strong in Kohl v. US allowed the federal government the right to exersize the power at will. The taking of the fort by South Carolina was exactly the same as the taking of Ft. Ticonderoga and Crown Point in the Revolutionary War. Currently, the federal government has over 300 laws and regulations that enable it to seize ANY property, be it "wetlands", planes, ships, vehicles, sites to be deemed historic, to species protection policies ad nauseum. If SC did not have the right to take control of property contained within her borders, then the states were guilty of the same indiscretion previously.
We've had this arguement before, 4CJ, mainly because to take the quote out of context.
I have neither the time nor intent to post every speech made by Lincoln in full, nor every court decision. Lincoln was the consumate politician, using about 4 different definitions of the word "union", and different dates for our founding (inaugural 1774, GA 1776 etc). In this speech, and many others, Lincoln has crowned himself dictator and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
The south sent three men to get Lincoln to agree that they were an independent country. He refused to do that.
On 14 Feb, 1861 the Confederate congress debated a resolution which "for the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two Governments", which passed the next day. On the 27 Feb 1861, President Davis sent a letter to President Lincoln introducing the delegates - Andre B. Roman, of Louisiana; Martin. J. Crawford, of Georgia; and John Forsyth, of Alabama.- stating that "I have invested them with full and all manner of power and authority for and in the name of the Confederate States to meet and confer with any person or persons duly authorized by the Government of the United States being furnished with like powers and authority, and with them to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations." Lincoln had no interest in a peaceful settlement.
The confederacy was not an independent nation and your saying so doesn't make it so. Neigher the United States nor any other nation recognized them as a soverign nation. They were a section of the United States in rebellion. Nothing more, nothing less.
If the Confederacy was not an independent nation, then neither were the states in 1776. Using that logic, ALL nations should be forced to rejoin their prior masters. The Confederacy was not in rebellion, they were not overthrowing the existing state/federal governments. What transpired was the people of the several states met in convention and voted peacefully to secede -it was not an overthrow of the governemnt, a coup d'etat, a revolution or anything similar.
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.
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. The process was very simple. 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 state’s approval was contingent upon the Federal government using the land. South Carolina’s legislature was so anxious to have Fort Sumter, that it provided for the first two and left out the third exception.
It is important to note that then, and now, the government refused to accept property where there was any other restriction. The state gave up all rights it might have in the property. Otherwise Congress would refuse to appropriate the necessary funds to build the installation. And it is important to note that the title given to the United States was fee simple, with specific notice that the property was exempt from any state or local taxes. Except for the qualification that the property could be entered to seize fugitives, the property passed in perpetuity to the Federal government.
Lincoln had no interest in a peaceful settlement.
Let me guess, you had neither the time or the intent to post this in context, either? The legislation of the confederate congress read as follows:
"Resolved by the Confederate States of America in Congress Assembled, That it is the sense of this Congress that a commission of three persons be appointed by the President elect, as early as may be convenient after his inauguration, and sent to the government of the United States of America, for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations between that government and the Confederate States of America, and for the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith."
The letter to Lincoln read:
"For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust, &c., Martin J. Crawford, John Forsyth, and A. B. Roman are appointed special commissioners of the Confederate States to the United States. I have invested them with full and all manner of power and authority, etc. etc."
In both cases, first and foremost the intention was recognition of the confederate states as a legitimate government. That was the killer right there because Lincoln was not about to recognize the southern rebellion as legitimate. Given that the rest was pointless, even assuming it was sincere. After all, the time to negotiate payment is before you sieze the property.
If the Confederacy was not an independent nation, then neither were the states in 1776.
In a manner of speaking, no they weren't because in the eyes of the rest of the world they didn't exist. The French and Spanish recognized the United States as a soverign nation. Prior to that the United States existed only in the minds of the people who believed in it.
You posted it yourself - the federal government did not have the power of eminent domain, and had to rely on the states to acquire the properties necessary. And under eminent domain, a state or other government entity can acquire any property it so desires - regardless of whether it has been ceded forever, or inherited with stipulations regarding divesture.
Let me guess, you had neither the time or the intent to post this in context, either?
I had posted the full text just weeks ago, no attempts were made at disinformation.
That was the killer right there because Lincoln was not about to recognize the southern rebellion as legitimate. Given that the rest was pointless, even assuming it was sincere. After all, the time to negotiate payment is before you sieze the property.
Lincoln attempted resupply of the forts with men & munitions despite his promises to the contrary. President Davis stated in his 29 Apr 1861 message to Congress that it was with "the firm resolve to avoid war if possible, they went so far even as to hold during that long period unofficial intercourse through an intermediary [Hon. John A. Campbell, a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States*], whose high position and character inspired the hope of success, and through whom constant assurances were received from the Government of the United States of peaceful intentions; of the determination to evacuate Fort Sumter; and further, that no measure changing the existing status prejudicially to the Confederate States, especially at Fort Pickens, was in contemplation, but that in the event of any change of intention on the subject, notice would be given to the commissioners." (* - see Davis' message to Congress 8 May 1961, Journal of the Congress of the Confederate States of America, 1861-1865, vol. I, p. 197).
The simple meeting with the three delegates would hardly constitute official recognition, as Lincoln could not effect a treaty by himself, that required consent of Congress. Justice Campbell was so incensed that he had been a lied to by Lincoln and Seward that he resigned his seat on the bench in protest 30 Apr 1861.
The French and Spanish recognized the United States as a soverign nation. Prior to that the United States existed only in the minds of the people who believed in it.
I think the millions of Americans were right, regardless of waht any others thought.
Eminent domain allows the state to take over private property for public use. A city cannot condemn state land for its own purposes and a state cannot condemn federal land for its own purposes, unless the state or federal government consent first. Sumte was federal property and remains federal property.
Lincoln attempted resupply of the forts with men & munitions despite his promises to the contrary.
Your assertion that Lincoln planned to reinforce regardless is your own opinion. And Davis's claims are not based on fact. While speculation on whether or not the North planned on abandoning Sumter went on, and there was confusion when certain cabinet members indicated that Sumter would be evacuated without the authority to say so, Lincoln was firm in his intention to hold on to the fort.
I think the millions of Americans were right, regardless of waht any others thought.
Millions of people think Al Gore won, too.
"Before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment this power [eminent domain] of the state was unrestrained by any federal authority."
Justice Day, Green v. Frazier , 253 US 233, (1920)
Whether or not the federal government agreed to it, the states could do what they wanted with respect to properties within their borders.
And I will ask again for an example which supports your claim. Point out one instance where a state or local government siezed federal property under eminent domain without the prior approval of the federal government.
But you are requsting a case where Federal property was taken via eminent domain without the prior approval of the federal government.
The Illinois legislature chartered a railroad and gave it eminent domain powers, the "power to build, maintain and use a railroad bridge over the Mississippi River, or that portion within the jurisdiction of the State of Illinois, at or near Rock Island." Rock Island had housed Ft. Armstrong, which had been abandoned in 1836. The railroad took part of Rock Island for a bridge, even though it was federal property. In United States v. Railroad Bridge Co., 6 McLean 517, (1855), Justice McLean wrote that when "the site is abandoned, the reserve falls back into the mass of the public lands." The railroad won.
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.