WASHINGTON, January 31,
1861.
SIR: I had the honor to hold a short interview with you on
the 14th instant, informal and unofficial. Having previously been informed that
you desired that whatever was official should be, on both sides, conducted by
written communications, I did not at that time present my credentials, but
verbally informed you that I bore a letter from the governor of South Carolina,
in regard to the occupation of Fort Sumter, which I would deliver the next day
under cover of a written communication from myself. The next day, before such
communication could be made, I was waited upon by a senator from Alabama, who
stated that he came on the part of all the senators then in Washington from the
States which had already seceded from the United States, or would certainly
have done so before the first day of February next. The senator from Alabama
urged that he and they were interested in the subject of my mission in almost
an equal degree with the authorities of South Carolina. He said that
hostilities commenced between South Carolina and your government would
necessarily involve the States represented by themselves in civil strife: and
fearing that the action of South Carolina might complicate the relations of
your government to the seceded and seceding States, and thereby interfere with
a peaceful solution of existing difficulties, these senators requested that I
would withhold my message to yourself until a consultation among themselves could
be had. To this I agreed, and the result of the consultation was the letter of
these senators addressed to me, dated January 15, a copy of which is in your
possession. To this letter I replied on the 17th, and a copy of that reply is
likewise in your possession. This correspondence, as I am informed, was made
the subject of a communication from Senators Fitzpatrick, Mallory, and Slidell,
addressed to you, and your attention called to the contents. These gentlemen
received on the — day of January a reply to their application, conveyed in a
letter addressed to them dated — —, signed by the Hon. J. Holt, Secretary of War
ad interim. Of this letter you of course have a copy. This letter from Mr. Holt
was communicated to me under cover of a letter from all the senators of the
seceded and seceding States who still remained in Washington, and of this
letter, too, I am informed you have been furnished with a copy.
This reply of yours, through the Secretary of War ad
interim, to the application made by the senators was entirely unsatisfactory to
me. It appeared to me to be not only a rejection in advance of the main
proposition made by these senators, to wit: that “an arrangement should be
agreed on” between the authorities of South Carolina and your government, “at
least until the 15th of February next,” by which time South Carolina and the
States represented by the senators “might
in convention devise a wise, just, and peaceable solution of existing
difficulties.” “In the meantime,” they say, “we think,” that is, these
senators, “that your State (South Carolina) should suffer Major Anderson to
obtain necessary supplies of food, fuel, or water, and enjoy free
communication, by post or special messenger, with the President, upon the
understanding that the President will not send him reenforcements during the
same period;” but, besides this rejection of the main proposition, there was,
in Mr. Holt’s letter, a distinct refusal to make any stipulation on the subject
of re-enforcement, even for the short time that might be required to
communicate with my government. This reply to the senators was, as I have
stated, altogether unsatisfactory to me, and I felt sure would be so to the
authorities whom I represented. It was not, however, addressed to me, or to the
authorities of South Carolina; and as South Carolina had addressed nothing to
your government, and had asked nothing at your hands, I looked not to Mr.
Holt's letter, but to the note addressed to me by the senators of the seceded
and seceding States. I had consented to withhold my message at their instance,
provided they could get assurances satisfactory to them that no re-enforcemcnts
would be sent to Fort Sumter in the interval, and that the peace should not be
disturbed by any act of hostility.
The senators expressed in their note to me of the 23d instant
their entire confidence “that no re-enforcements will be sent to Fort Sumter,
nor will the public peace be disturbed within the period requisite for full
communication between you (myself) and your (my) government,” and renewed their
request that I would withhold the communication with which I stood charged, and
await further instructions.
This I have done. The further instructions arrived on the
30th instant, and bear date the 26th. I now have the honor to make to you my
first communication as special envoy from the government of South Carolina. You
will find enclosed the original communication to the President of the United
States from the governor of South Carolina, with which I was charged in
Charleston on the 12th day of January instant, the day on which it bears date.
I am now instructed by the governor Of South Carolina to say that his opinion
as to the propriety of the demand which is contained in this letter “has not
only been confirmed by the circumstances which your (my) mission has developed
but is now increased to a conviction of its necessity. The safety of the State
requires that the position of the President should be distinctly understood.
The safety of all seceding States requires it as much as the safety of South
Carolina. If it be so that Fort Sumter is held as Property, then, as property,
the rights, whatever they may be, of the United States can be ascertained, and
for the satisfaction of these rights the pledge of the State of South Carolina
you are (I am) authorized to give.” “If Fort Sumter is not held as property, it
is held,” say my instructions, “as a military post, and such a post within the
limits of South Carolina will not be tolerated.” You will perceive that it is
upon the presumption that it is solely as property that you continue to hold
Fort Sumter that I have been selected for the performance of the duty upon
which I have entered. I do not come as a military man to demand the surrender
of a fortress, but as the legal officer of the State — its attorney general — to
claim for the State the exercise of its undoubted right of eminent domain, and
to pledge the State to make good all injury to the rights of property which
arise from the exercise of the claim.
South Carolina, as a separate, independent sovereign,
assumes the right to take into her own possession everything within her limits
essential to maintain her honor or her safety, irrespective of the question of
property, subject only to the moral duty requiring that compensation should be
made to the owner. This right she cannot permit to be drawn into discussion. As
to compensation for any property, whether of an individual or a government,
which she may deem it necessary for her honor or safety to take into her possession,
her past history gives ample guarantee that it will be made, upon a fair
accounting, to the last dollar.
The proposition now is that her law officer should, under
authority of the governor and his council, distinctly pledge the faith of South
Carolina to make such compensation in regard to Fort Sumter, and its
appurtenances and contents, to the full extent of the money value of the
property of the United States delivered over to the authorities of South
Carolina by your command. I will not suppose that a pledge like this can be
considered insufficient security. Is not the money value of the property of the
United States in this fort, situated where it cannot be made available to the
United States for any one purpose for which it was originally constructed,
worth more to the United States than the property itself? Why then, as
property, insist on holding it by an armed garrison? Yet such has been the
ground upon which you have invariably placed your occupancy of this fort by
troops — beginning prospectively with your annual message of the 4th December,
again in your special message of the 9th January, and still more emphatically
in your message of the 28th January. The same position is set forth in your
reply to the senators, through the Secretary of War ad interim. It is there
virtually conceded that Fort Sumter “is held merely as property of the United
States, which you deem it your duty to protect and preserve.” Again, it is
submitted that the continuance of an armed possession actually jeopards the
property you desire to protect. It is impossible but that such a possession, if
continued long enough, must lead to collision. No people not completely abject
and pusillanimous could submit indefinitely to the armed occupation Of a
fortress in the midst of the harbor of its principal city, and commanding the
ingress and egress Of every ship that enters the port — the daily ferry-boats
that ply upon its waters moving but at the sufferance of aliens. An attack upon
this fort would scarcely improve it as property, whatever the result; and if
captured, it would no longer be the subject of account. To protect Fort Sumter
merely as property, it is submitted that an armed occupancy is not only
unnecessary, but that it is manifestly the worst possible means which can be
resorted to for such an object.
Your reply to the senators, through Mr. Holt, declares it to
be your sole object “to act strictly on the defensive, and to authorize no
movement against South Carolina, unless justified by a hostile movement on
their part.” Yet, in reply to the proposition of the senators — that no
re-enforcements should be sent to Fort Sumter, provided South Carolina agrees
that during the same period no attack should be made — you say “it is
impossible for me (your Secretary) to give you (the senators) any such
assurance;” that “it would be manifest violation of his (your) duty, to place
himself (yourself) under engagements that he (you) would not perform the duty,
either for an indefinite or a limited period.” In your message of the 28th
instant, in expressing yourself in regard to a similar proposition, you say: “However
strong may be my desire to enter into such an agreement, I am convinced that I
do not possess the power. Congress, and Congress alone, under the war-making
power, can exercise the discretion of agreeing to abstain ‘from any and all
acts calculated to produce a collision of arms’ between this and any other
government. It would, therefore, be a usurpation for the Executive to attempt
to restrain their hands by an agreement in regard to matters over which he has
no constitutional control. If he were thus to act, they might pass laws which
he should be bound to obey, though in conflict with his agreement.” The
proposition, it is suggested, was addressed to you under the laws as they now
are, and was not intended to refer to a new condition of things arising under
new legislation. It was addressed to the executive discretion, acting under
existing laws. If Congress should, under the war-making power, or in any other
way, legislate in a manner to affect the peace of South Carolina, her
interests, or her rights, it would not be accomplished in secret; South
Carolina would have timely notice, and she would, I trust, endeavor to meet the
emergency.
It is added, in the letter of Mr. Holt, that “ at the
present moment it is not deemed necessary to re-enforce Major Anderson, because
he makes no such request, and feels quite secure in his position;” “but should
his safety require it, every effort will be made to supply re-enforccments.”
This would seem to ignore the other branch of the proposition made by the
senators, viz: that no attack was to be made on Fort Sumter during the period
suggested, and that Major Anderson should enjoy the facilities of
communication, &c., &c. I advert to this point, however, for the
purpose of saying that to send re-enforcements to Fort Sumter could not serve
as a means of protecting and Warning Mulberry; for, as must be known to your
government, it would inevitably lead to immediate hostilities, in which
property on all sides would necessarily suffer. South Carolina has every
disposition to preserve the public peace, and feels, I am sure, in full force,
those high “ Christian and moral duties" referred to by your Secretary;
and it is submitted that on her part there is scarcely any consideration of
mere property, apart from honor and safety, which could induce her to do aught
to jeopard that peace, still less to inaugurate a protracted and bloody civil
war. She rests her position on something higher than mere property. It is a
consideration of her own dignity as a sovereign, and the safety of her people,
which prompts her to demand that this property should not longer be used as a military
post by a government she no longer acknowledges. She feels this to be an
imperative duty. It has, in fact, become an absolute necessity of her
condition.
Repudiating, as you do, the idea of coercion, avowing
peaceful intentions, and expressing a patriot's horror for civil war and bloody
strife among those who once were brethren, it is hoped that, on further
consideration, you will not, on a mere question of property, refuse the
reasonable demand of South Carolina, which honor and necessity alike compel her
to vindicate. Should you disappoint this hope, the responsibility for the
result surely does not rest with her. If the evils of war are to be
encountered, especially the calamities of civil war, an elevated statesmanship
would seem to require that it should be accepted as the unavoidable alternative
of something still more disastrous, such as national dishonor, or measures
materially affecting the safety or permanent interests of a people; that it
should be a choice deliberately made, and entered upon as war, and of set
purpose. But that war should be the incident or accident attendant on a policy
professedly peaceful, and not required to effect the object which is avowed, as
the only end intended, can only be excused where there has been no warning
given as to the consequences.
I am further instructed to say that South Carolina cannot,
by her silence, appear to acquiesce in the imputation that she was guilty of an
act of unprovoked aggression in firing on the “Star of the West.” Though an
unarmed vessel, she was filled with armed men, entering her territory against
her will with the purpose of re-enforcing a garrison held within her limits
against her protest. She forbears to recriminate by discussing the question of
the propriety of attempting such a re-enforcement at all, as well as of the
disguised and secret manner in which it was intended to be effected; and on
this occasion she will say nothing as to the manner in which Fort Sumter was
taken into the possession of its present occupants. The interposition of the
senators who have addressed you was a circumstance unexpected by my government,
and unsolicited certainly by me. The governor, while he appreciates the high
and generous motives by which they were prompted, and while he fully approves the
delay which, in deference to them, has taken place in the presentation of this
demand, feels that it cannot longer be withheld.
I conclude with an extract from the instructions just
received by me from the government of South Carolina. “The letter of the
President, through Mr. Holt, may be received as the reply to the question you
were instructed to ask, as to his assertion of his right to send
re-enforcements to Fort Sumter. You were instructed to say to him, if he
asserted that right, that the State of South Carolina regarded such a right,
when asserted, or with an attempt at its exercise, as a declaration of war. If
the President intends it shall not be so understood, it is proper, to avoid any
misconception hereafter, that he should be informed of the manner in which the
governor will feel bound to regard it. If the President, when you have stated
the reasons which prompt the governor in making the demand for the delivery of
Fort Sumter, shall refuse to deliver the fort upon the pledge you have been
authorized to make, you will communicate that refusal without delay to the
governor. If the President shall not be prepared to give you an immediate
answer, you will communicate to him that his answer may be transmitted within a
reasonable time to the governor at this place, (Charleston, South Carolina.)
The governor does not consider it necessary that you (I) should remain longer
in Washington than is necessary to execute this, the closing duty of your (my)
mission in the manner now indicated to you, (me.) As soon as the governor shall
receive from you information that you have closed your mission, and the reply,
whatever it may be, of the President, he will consider the conduct which will
be necessary on his part.”
Allow me to request that you would as soon as possible
inform me whether, under these instructions, I need await your answer in
Washington. And if not, I would be pleased to convey from you to my government
information as to the time when an answer may be expected in Charleston.
With consideration, I have the honor to be, very
respectfully,
ISAAC W. HAYNE,
Special Envoy.
His EXCELLENCY JAMES BUCHANAN, President.
SOURCE: John Bassett Moore, Editor, Works of James Buchanan, Volume 11, p. 132-7
