Judge rules Confederate letters are state property

The Charlotte Observer ^ | Aug. 17, 2005 | AMY GEIER EDGAR

[Steve_Seattle]

"If it has docket markers on it, might these letters have earlier been lifted from the public archives at some ancient date?"

But the point is that nobody knows how or when the family obtained the documents. There is simply no evidence that the documents were obtained improperly. Keep in mind that these were not necessarily considered valuable or historical documents at the time they were created; they were basically routine correspondence of a kind which is usually disposed of after a mandatory minimal archival period. The state's case is built upon a series of assumptions, not facts. For all we know, the state put the documents up for auction a hundred years ago and the family bought them. I'm no lawyer, I think this case is very vulnerable to reversal at a higher level.

[Arthalion]

If that's the story, then the judges decision was the correct one. If your grandfather is in possession of stolen property and passes it on to you, that inheritance doesn't make the property any less stolen.

In this case, the guys ancestor was entrusted with state property to protect it from the union army. When the war was over, the guy should have returned the papers to the state. The fact that he didn't makes him a thief, and doesn't grant his descendants any kind of claim to the papers.

[Question_Assumptions]

Given that the southern states that seceded from the Union were not considered a part of the United States for the purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation and the passage of several Constitutional Amendments after the war, I think he could argue that the letters involved a foreign nation that no longer exists.

[Texas_Conservative2]

WTH !

This guy needs a better lawyer.

[Steve_Seattle]

"This article raises more questions than it answers, the primary question being 'how did he or his predecessors come into original possession of these letters?"

I don't think anyone knows. The state claims they are official documents, but can't prove it. Maybe 130 years ago, the state sold the documents to a scrap dealer or an auction house. Maybe the family PAID for the documents. The point is, I don't think the state can just claim ownership when there's no proof the family didn't obtain the documents legitimately.

Here's a comparative example: public libraries routinely sell off old books that are deemed of no lasting significance. Suppose I buy one of these books and it stays in my family for 100 years, and it turns out to be worth $100,000. Then my descendent files for bankruptcy and the $100,000 book goes into court and someone sees a Seattle Public Library stamp on the book, so the City finds out about this and claims title to the book. That's not too different from what's happening in this case.

[Vicomte13]

The Confederate discontinuity argument is interesting, but it doesn't work for the states.
Decisions of the state courts before, during and after the War Between the States are all binding precedent without distinction. By contrast, the decisions of the Supreme Court of the CSA (assuming there was such an entity) have no legal force, although I suppose they could be cited as "persusasive authority".

The States did not cease to exist. Their citizens entered into a state of rebellion, the rebellion was put down, the state continued to be a state in unbroken continuity, at least legally speaking.

[Itzlzha]

Give the state a bill for 130+ years of storage fees

THAT is an AWESOME idea!

Get a shark, and use the fallout from Kelo up in Conn. to give weight to their claim!

I believe that 130 years of "storage fees", including compounded interest due to a history of "lack of payment" might be worth MORE than the letters at auction!

Then use the proceeds to buy some tar and feathers, and grab that P.O.S. Judge, and re-introduce him to "Pre-Declaration of Independence" local justice!

[Vicomte13]

I agree with your assessment that the burden ought to be on the STATE to prove ownership of these documents.

It will be interesting to see what the appellate courts do.

[Steve_Seattle]

"These letters had been part of the official correspondence of the State of South Carolina. The letters were part of a group of documents that were entrusted to a CS government official for safekeeping near the end of the war. His job was to prevent these and other documents from falling into enemy hands so they could be returned to the government once a safe location for their storage could be found. Since the war ended shortly thereafter, the documents remained with the man who had been entrusted with them. He kept them hidden from the Federal authorities who most certainly wanted to investigate them as part of the compilation of the Official Records of the Rebellion."

Is this scenario a proven fact, or just a theory? The article doesn't mention any of this. Is there a proven "chain of evidence" between these documents and a specific person acting in the aftermath of the Civil War?

[Between the Lines]

If that is the case, I would still think that since the papers were entrusted to the family by a state of the CSA that no longer exists, it would not apply to the current state of SC now part of the USA.

[OKIEDOC]

Agreed

[patriot_wes]

Hey - If it serves the public good there's no such thing as private property - it all belongs to the "collective".

[/sarc]

[OKIEDOC]

In big agreement.

[PAR35]

The poor guy should sue his bankruptcy attorney.

Why?

Bankruptcy courts are basically courts of equity, which means that you better have clean hands when you ask the bankruptcy court for relief.

Based on this story, which is not very well done, I can't tell if the court was correct or incorrect in its conclusions. In fact, there is some question in my mind if the reporter is correct when they call Krawcheck "his attorney".

[Steve_Seattle]

"The States did not cease to exist. Their citizens entered into a state of rebellion, the rebellion was put down, the state continued to be a state in unbroken continuity, at least legally speaking."

That's kind of what I thought (post #58), but I wasn't sure so I left myself a little wiggle-room. But in another post, XRdsRev suggests that the history of these specific documents is known, and that they can be traced to a particular individual. If that is true - and this article does not say anything about it - the state's case would be stronger. I had had the impression from the story that no one really knew where the documents came from or how they were obtained.

[Steve_Seattle]

"I agree with your assessment that the burden ought to be on the STATE to prove ownership of these documents."

XRdsRev claims that - apparently based on something else he/she has read - that these documents have a pedigree and can be traced back to a specific individual and a specific post-Civil War scenario. If that is true, the state may have a better case than you would assume from this article. Still, there are some old legal cliches and principles that seem to be violated here, e.g., "possession is nine-tenths of the law," statute of limitations, chain-of-evidence, proof of ownership, etc.

[Vicomte13]

"Given that the southern states that seceded from the Union were not considered a part of the United States for the purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation and the passage of several Constitutional Amendments after the war..."

I think we need to question some assumptions here.
The southern states were part of the United States for the purpose of ratifying the post-Civil War Amendments. Here is how Southern states voted to ratify, and when:

Tennessee, April 7, 1865; Arkansas, April 14, 1865; Connecticut, May 4, 1865; New Hampshire, July 1, 1865; South Carolina, November 13, 1865; Alabama, December 2, 1865; North Carolina, December 4, 1865; Georgia, December 6, 1865.

Ratification was completed on December 6, 1865.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Florida, December 28, 1865 (Florida again ratified on June 9, 1868, upon its adoption of a new constitution); Texas, February 18, 1870.

The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Mississippi, December 4, 1865.

[Polybius]

So if I come across a catch of letters written by Abe Lincoln when he was in the Illinois House of representatives I would have to give them to the State of Illinois rather than be able to sell them or even receive a tax credit for the donation.

If they were personal correspondence they belong to you.

If they were official correspondence, they belong to the Government.

[Steve_Seattle]

"If they were official correspondence, they belong to the Government."

Unless the government sold them, auctioned them, or officially disposed of them, which they do with millions of documents.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I can see your point.