January 30, 1861, The Charleston Mercury
The Government of the United States insists on holding Fort Sumter as property. They pretend to think that this is by no means a hostile attitude against South Carolina. They do not hold it was a military instrumentality by which the waters of our bay and the commerce of our city are controlled. It is true that we have offered to take it, and pay for it, as property. But they will not let us have it; and keep it – a threat, an insult, and an instrument of coercion by the power of the cannon. Fort Sumter is property, like every other fortress in the world; but was it ever heard of that a power can have a right to hold on to a fortress within the jurisdiction of another power, simply because it is property? A fortress is not like a cotton factory, or a pottery, harmless in nature, and incapable of assailing or injuring the people of a country. It is an instrument of war; and when kept possession of by one nation with an armed soldiery, in defiance of the will of another nation, that possession itself is a declaration of hostility. Cannon are property. Suppose a river divides two nations, as is the case for thousands of miles in Europe, and one nation plants cannon on one side of the river, opposite to a city on the other side of the river – would it not be considered a measure of war? The cannon and soil are property, belonging to the people on the side of the river opposite to the city, but when made a fortress, commanding the city, it is more than property. It is an instrument of force, and means war. This is the position taken by writers on the laws of nations. In what does such a case differ from the present state of things in the bay of Charleston? A fortress, belonging to us, in common with other States, is erected in the bay of Charleston, to protect the city. South Carolina withdraws from the Union with her co-States in the Confederacy of the United States. The Government of the United States, instead of surrendering this fortress to the authorities of the State, persists in holding it, for no purpose which can be conceived of, except to assail and coerce the State. As property, it is valueless to them for any other purpose. As property, the State has offered to pay for it. What, then, is its continued possession, but an insult – an act of hostility? Is it not like the cannon planted on the opposite side of the river? If Fort Sumter was not built, and the Government of the United States owned the land on which it stands – would it be now tolerated, that it should send troops and laborers, and erect the fort on this land? Would any publicist or jurist doubt that we would be justified in preventing the erection of the fort? and if this position is correct, how can it be doubted that we have a right to take Fort Sumter now that it is built or to destroy it if we can? What is a right in matters affecting the security of a State, implies a duty to enforce it.