MHO 
 
 uorresponaence 
 Conf Pam 12mo #940 
 
EXECUTIVE DOCUMENTS. 
 
 No. 5. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 ISAAC W. HAYNE, 
 
 Special Envoy, 
 
 AND 
 
 THE PRESIDENT 
 
 RELATING TO 
 
 FORT SUMTER. 
 
 CHARLESTON: 
 
 STEAM-POWER PRESSES OF EVANS ii COGSWELL, 
 No. 3 Broad and 103 East Bay Street 
 
 1861. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/correspondencebe06unit 
 

 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 No. 1. 
 [MR. hayne to the president of the united states] 
 
 Washington, January 31, 1861. 
 
 To his Excellency, James Buchanan. President : 
 
 Sir : — 1 had the honor to hold a short interview with you on 
 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 thai 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 
 1st 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 Caro- 
 lina. He said, that, hostilities, commenced between South Car- 
 olina 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 rela- 
 tions 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 T agreed, and the result of the consulta- 
 tion was the letter of these Senators addressed to me, dated 
 15th January, a copy of which is in your possession. To this 
 letter I replied on the 17th, and a cdpy of that reply is likewise 
 in your possession. This correspondence, as T am informed, 
 was made the subject of a communication from Senators Fitz- 
 patrick, Mallory, and Slidell, addressed to you, and your atten- 
 tion called to tin 1 contents. These gentlemen received on the 
 22d day of .January, a reply to their application, conveyed in 
 a letter addressed to them, dated 2'^d, signed by the Hon. J. 
 BOLT, Secretary of War, n<l interim. Of this letter, you,. of 
 course, have a copy. This letter from Mr. Holt was communi- 
 cated to me under the cover of a letter from all the Senators of 
 the seceded and seceding. States, who still remained in Wash- 
 ington; 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 inti rim t 
 to the application made by the Senators, was entirely unsatis- 
 factory 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 bo agreed on between 
 the authorities of South Carolina and your Government, at 
 least until the loth February next, by which time South Car- 
 olina and the States represented by the Senators might, in 
 Convention, devise a wise, just, and peaceable solution of exist- 
 ing 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 spe- 
 cial messenger with the President, upon the understanding 
 that the President will not send him reinforcements during 
 the same period;" but, besides this rejection of the main prop- 
 osition, there was in Mr. Holt's letter, a distinct refusal to make 
 any stipulation on the subject of reinforcement, 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 that it would be so to the 
 authorities Whom I represented. It was not, however, ad- 
 dressed 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 reinforcements 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 inst., their " entire confidence 
 that no reinforcements 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) Govern- 
 ment," 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 inst.. and bear date the 26th. I now have 
 the honor to make to you my first communication a> 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 convic- 
 tion 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 can- 
 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 le^a! officer of 
 
the ; - Attorney General, to claim tor the Si air the excr- 
 
 of its undoubted rigbl of eminent domain, ami to pledge 
 
 the State to make good all injury lo the rights of property 
 which may arise from the exercise of the claim. 
 
 South Carolina, as a separate, independent sovereignty, 
 
 assumes the right to take into her possession everything within 
 her limits essential to maintain her honor or her safety, irre- 
 spective of the question of property, subject only to the moral 
 duty requiring that compensation should be made to the owner. 
 
 This righl she cannot permit to be drawn into discussion. As 
 io 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 guaranty that it will he 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, dis- 
 tinctly pledge the faith of South Carolina to make such com- 
 p ligation 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 
 ( 'arolina, 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 Sum- 
 ter "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 pos- 
 session 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 egr< 
 every ship that enters the port; the daily ferry boats that ply 
 upon the 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 pro- 
 position of the Senators that no reinforcements 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 y<m (the Senators 
 any such assurance," that it " would be a manifest violation of 
 his (your) duty to place himself (yourself) under engagements 
 that he (you) would not perform the duty either for an inderi- 
 nite or a limited period." 
 
 In your Message of the 28th inst., 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 con- 
 vinced that I do not possess the power. Congress, and Con- 
 gress alone, under the war-making power, can exercise the dis- 
 cretion of agreeing to abstain 'from any and all acts calculated 
 to produce a collision of arms' between this and other govern- 
 ments. 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 tin- 
 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 
 
8 
 
 in any other way, Legislate in a manner to affect the peace of 
 
 South Carolina, her interests or beT rights, it would not be 
 
 lomplished in Becret. South Carolina would have timely 
 
 notice, and she would, I trust, endeavor to meet the emer- 
 
 It is added in the letter of Mr. Holt, that "at the present 
 moment it is not deemed necessary to reinforce Rfaj or Ander- 
 son, 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 reinforcements." This would seem 
 to ignore the other branch of the proposition made by the Sen- 
 ators, viz: that no attack was to be made on Fort Sumter dur- 
 ing the period suggested, and that Major Anderson should en- 
 joy the facilities of communication, &c, &c. 
 
 J advert to this point, however, for the purpose of saying 
 that to sL-nd reinforcements to Fort Sumter could not serve as a 
 means of protecting and preserving PROPERTY, for, as must be 
 known to your Government, it would inevitably lead to imme- 
 diate hostilities, in which property on all sides would neces- 
 sarily suffer. 
 
 South Carolina has every disposition to preserve the public 
 I ace, and feels, I am sure, in full force, those high, "Chris- 
 tian and moral duties" referred to by your Secretary, and it 
 is submitted that on her part there is scarcely any considera- 
 tion of mere property, apart from honor and safety, which 
 could induce her to do ought 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 con- 
 sideration 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 impera- 
 tive duty. It has, in fact, become an absolute necessity of 
 her condition. 
 
 Repudiating, as you do, the idea of coercion, avowing peace- 
 ful 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 
 
9 
 
 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 
 recpiired to effect the object which is avowed as the only end 
 intended, can only be excused when 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 tiring 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 reinforcing a garrison, held, within her limits, 
 against her protest. She forbears to recriminate by discussing 
 the question of the propriety of attempting such a reinforce- 
 ment 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 unso- 
 licited 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 re- 
 ceived as the reply to the question you were instructed to ask, 
 as to his assertion of his right to send reinforcements 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 declara- 
 tion of war. 
 
 " If the President intends it shall not be so understood, it is 
 
10 
 
 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 
 Sumter, shall refuse to deliver the fort upon the pledge you 
 have been authorized to m-ake, 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 exe- 
 cute 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 hava closed your mis- 
 sion, and the reply, whatever it may be, of the President, he 
 will consider the conduct which may be necessary on his part." 
 
 Allow me the 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 con- 
 vey from you to my Government, information as to the time 
 when an answer may be expected in Charleston. 
 With high consideration, 
 
 I am, very respectfully, 
 
 ISAAC W. HAYNE, 
 
 Special Envoy. 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 [LETTER OF MR. HOLT TO MR. HAYNE.] 
 
 War Department, February G, 1861. 
 
 Sir: The President of the United States has received your 
 letter of the 31st ult., and has charged me with the duty of 
 replying thereto. 
 
 In the communication addressed to the President by Gov- 
 
11 
 
 ernor Pickens, under date of the 12th of January, and which 
 accompanies yours now before me, his Excellency says : " I 
 have determined to send to you the Hon. I. W. Hayne, the 
 Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, and have 
 instructed him to demand the surrender of Fort Sumter, in the 
 harbor of Charleston, to the constituted authorities of the 
 State of South Carolina. The demand I have made of Major 
 Anderson, and which 1 now make of you, is suggested because 
 of my earnest desire to avoid the bloodshed which a persist- 
 ence in your attempt to retain the possession of that Fort will 
 cause, and which will be unavailing to secure to you that pos- 
 session, but induce a calamity most deeply to be deplored." 
 The character of the demand thus authorized to be made, 
 appears under the influence, I presume, of the correspondence 
 with the Senators to which you refer, to have been modified 
 by subsequent instructions of his Excellency, dated the 26th, 
 and received by yourself on the 30th of January, in which he 
 says : " 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 
 authorized to give." The full scope and precise purport of 
 your instructions, as thus modified, you have expressed in the 
 following words : " 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." And lest this explicit lan- 
 guage should not sufficiently define your position, you add : 
 '• The proposition now is that her (South Carolina's) law officer 
 should, under authority of the Governor and his Council, dis- 
 tinctly pledge the faith of South Carolina to make such com- 
 pensation, 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." You then adopt his Excellency's 
 train of thought upon the subject, so far as to suggest that the 
 possession of Fort Sumter by the United States, " if continued 
 long enough, must lead to collision," and that " an attack upon 
 it would scarcely improve it as property, whatever the result. 
 
12 
 
 and if captured, it would no longer be the subject of account." 
 The proposal, then, rfow presented to the President, is simply 
 an offer on the part of South Carolina to buy Fort Sumter and 
 contents, as property of the United States, sustained by a 
 declaration, in effect, that, if she is not permitted to make the 
 purchase, she will seize the fort by force of arms. As the 
 initiation of a negotiation for the transfer of property betWeen 
 friendly governments, this proposal impresses the President as 
 having assumed a most unusual form. He has, however, inves- 
 tigated the claim on which it professes to be based, apart from 
 the declaration that accompanies it. And it may be here 
 remarked that much stress has been laid upon the employment 
 of the words " property" and "public property," by the Presi- 
 dent in his several messages. These are the most comprehen- 
 -i\e terms which can be used in such a connection, and, surely, 
 when referring to a fort, or any other public establishment, 
 they embrace the entire and undivided interest of the Gov- 
 ernment therein. The title of the United States to Fort 
 Sumter is complete and incontestable. Were its interest in 
 this property purely proprietary, in the ordinary acceptation 
 of the term, it might probably be subjected to the exercise of 
 the right of eminent domain ; but it has also political relations 
 to it of a much higher and more imposing character than those 
 of mere proprietorship. It has absolute jurisdiction over the 
 fort, and the soil on which it stands. This jurisdiction con- 
 sists in the authority to " exercise exclusive legislation " over 
 the property referred to, and is, therefore, clearly incompatible 
 with the claim of " eminent domain," now insisted upon by 
 South Carolina. This authority was not derived from any 
 questionable revolutionary source, but from the peaceful ces- 
 sion of South Carolina herself, acting through her Legislature, 
 under a provision of the Constitution of the United States. 
 South Carolina can no more assert the right of eminent domain 
 over Fort Sumter than Maryland can assert it over the District 
 of Columbia. The political and proprietary rights of the 
 United States, in either case, rest upon precisely the same 
 ground. 
 
 The President, however, is relieved from the necessity of 
 further pursuing this inquiry by the fact that, whatever may 
 be the claim of South Carolina to this fort, he has no Constitu- 
 tional power to cede or surrender it. The property of the 
 
13 
 
 United States has been acquired by force of public law. and 
 can only be disposed of under the same solemn sanctions. The 
 President, as the head of the Executive branch of the Govern- 
 ment only, can no more sell and transfer Fort Sumter to South 
 Carolina than he can sell and convey the Capital of the United 
 States to Maryland, or to any other State or individual seeking 
 to possess it. His Excellency the Governor is too familial* 
 with the Constitution of the United States, and with the limit- 
 ations upon the powers of the Chief Magistrate of the Govern- 
 ment it lias established, not to appreciate at once the soundness 
 of this legal proposition. 
 
 The question of reinforcing Fort Sumter is so fully disposed 
 of in my letter to Senator Slidell and others, under date of 
 the 22d of January — a copy of which accompanies this — that 
 its discussion will not now be renewed. I then said: "At 
 the present moment, it is not deemed necessary to reinforce 
 Major Anderson, because he makes no such request. Should 
 his safety, however, require reinforcements, every effort will 
 be made to supply them." I can add nothing to the explicit- 
 ness of this language, which still applies to the existing status. 
 The right to send forward reinforcements, when in the judg- 
 ment of the President the safety of the garrison requires them, 
 rests on the same unquestionable foundation as the right to 
 occupy the fortress itself. 
 
 In the letter of Senator Davis and others to yourself, under 
 date of the 15th ultimo, they say : " We, therefore, think it 
 especially due from South Carolina to our States — to say noth- 
 ing of other slaveholding States — that she should, as far as she 
 can consistently with her honor, avoid initiating hostilities 
 between her and the United States, or any other power;" and 
 you now yourself give to the President the gratifying assur- 
 ance, that " South Carolina has every disposition to preserve 
 the public peace," and since he is himself sincerely animated 
 by the same desire, it would seem that this common and patri- 
 otic object must be of certain attainment. It is difficult, how- 
 ever, to reconcile with this assurance the declaration on your 
 part, that " it is a consideration of her (South Carolina's) 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," and the thought you so constantly present, 
 
14 
 
 that this occupation must lead to a collision of arms and the 
 prevalence of civil war. Fort Sumter is in itself a military 
 post, and nothing else, and it would seem that not so much the 
 fact as the purpose of its use, should give to it a hostile or a 
 friendly character. Tin's fortress is now held by the Govern- 
 ment of the United States, for the same objects for which it 
 has been held from the completion of its construction. These 
 are national and defensive, and were a public enemy now to 
 attempt the capture of Charleston, or the destruction of the 
 commerce of its harbor, the whole force of the batteries of this 
 fortress would be at once exerted for their protection. How 
 the presence of a small garrison, actuated by such a spirit as 
 this, can compromise the dignity or honor of South Carolina, 
 or become a source of irritation to her people, the President is 
 at a loss to understand. The attitude of that garrison, as has 
 been often declared, is neither menacing, defiant, nor unfriend- 
 ly. It is acting under orders to stand strictly on the defensive, 
 and the Government and people of South Carolina must well 
 know that they can never receive aught but shelter from its 
 guns, unless, in the absence of all provocation, they should 
 assault and seek its destruction. The intent with which this 
 fortress is held by the President is truthfully stated by Senator 
 Davis and others, in their letter to yourself of the 15th Janu- 
 ary, in which they say, "it is not held with any hostile or 
 unfriendly purpose towards your State, but merely as property 
 of the United States, which the President deems it his duty to 
 protect and preserve." 
 
 If the announcement, so repeatedly made, of the President's 
 pacific purposes in continuing the occupation of Fort Sumter 
 until the question shall have been settled by competent au- 
 thority, has failed to impress the government of South Caro- 
 lina, the forbearing conduct of his Administration for the last 
 few months, should be received as conclusive evidence of his 
 sincerity. And if this forbearance, in view of the circum- 
 stances which have so severely tried it, be not accepted as a 
 satisfactory pledge of the peaceful policy of this administra- 
 tion towards South Carolina, then it may be safely affirmed, 
 that neither language or conduct can possibly furnish one. If, 
 with all the multiplied proofs which exist, of the President's 
 anxiety for peace, and of the earnestness with which he has 
 pursued it, the authorities of that State shall assault Port 
 
15 
 
 Sumter, and peril the lives of the handful of brave and loyal 
 men shut up within its walls, and thus plunge our common 
 country into the horrors of civil war, then upon them and those 
 they represent, must rest the responsibility. 
 Yery respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 J. HOLT, Secretary of War. 
 
 The Hon. I. W. IIayne, Attorney General of State of South 
 Carolina. 
 
 P. S. — The President has not. as you have been informed, 
 received a copy of the letter to yourself from the Senators, 
 communicating that of Mr. Holt of the 22d of January. 
 
 J. II. 
 
 No. 3. 
 
 [LETTER OF MR. HAYNE TO MR. HOLT.] 
 
 Washington, February 7, 1861. 
 To His Excellency, James Buchanan, President : 
 
 Sir : — Your reply, through your Secretary of the War De- 
 partment, to my communication of the 31st of January, cover- 
 ing the demand of the Governor of South Carolina for the 
 delivery of Fort Sumter, was received yesterday. Although 
 the very distinct and emphatic refusal of that demand closes 
 my mission, I feel constrained to correct some strange misap- 
 prehensions into which your Secretary has fallen. 
 
 There has been no modification of the demand authorized 
 to.be made, and no change whatever in its character, and 
 of this you were distinctly informed in my communication 
 of the 31st of January. You have the original demand as 
 delivered to me by G-overnor Pickens on the 12th of January, 
 and you have an extract from the further instructions 
 received by me, expressly stating that he, the Governor, 
 was "confirmed" in the views he entertained on the 12th 
 of January by that very correspondence which you assign 
 as the cause of the alleged modification. You assume that 
 the character of the demand has been modified, yet you have 
 from me but one communication, and that asserts the con- 
 
16 
 
 trary, and you have nothing from the Governor but the very 
 demand itself, which you Bay lias been modified. What pur- 
 pose o'f peace or conciliation your Secretary could have had 
 in view in the introduction of this point at all, it is difficult to 
 perceive. 
 
 You next attempt to ridicule the proposal presented "as 
 simply an offer on the part of South Carolina to buy Port 
 Sumter and contents as property of the United States, sustained 
 hy a declaration in effect that if she is not permitted to make 
 the purchase, she will seize the fort by force of arms." It 
 is difficult to consider this as other than intentional miscon- 
 struction. You were told that South Carolina, as a separate, 
 independent sovereignty, would not tolerate the occupation, 
 by foreign troops, of a military post within her limits, but, that 
 inasmuch as you, in repeated messages and in your corres- 
 pondence, had " laid much stress" upon the character of your 
 duties, arising from considering forts as property, South Caro- 
 lina, so far as this matter of property, suggested by yourself, 
 was concerned, would make compensation for all injury done 
 the property, in the exercise of her sovereign right of eminent 
 domain. And this your Secretary calls a proposal to purchase' ! 
 
 The idea of purchase is entirely inconsistent with the asser- 
 tion of paramount right in the purchaser. I had supposed 
 that an " interest in property," as such, could be no other than 
 ' ; purely proprietary," and if I confined myself to this narrow- 
 view of your "relations" to Fort Sumter, you, at least, should 
 not consider it the subject of criticism. Until your letter of 
 yesterday, you chose so to consider your relations, in every- 
 thing which you have written, or which has been written under 
 your direction. It was precisely because you had yourself 
 chosen to place your action upon the ground of " purely pro- 
 prietary" right that the proposal of compensation was made, 
 and you now admit that in this view " it (Fort Sumter; would 
 probably be subjected to the exercise of the right of eminent 
 domain." 
 
 In your letter of yesterday (through your Secretary) you 
 shift your position. You claim that your Government bears to 
 Fort Sumter " political relations of a much higher and more 
 imposing character." It was no part of my mission to discuss 
 the "political relations" of the United States Government to 
 anything within the territorial limits of South Carolina. South 
 
IT 
 
 Carolina claims to have dissolved all political connection with 
 your Government, and to have destroyed all " political rela- 
 tions" of your Government with everything within her borders. 
 She is unquestionably at this moment de facto a separate and 
 independent Government, exercising complete sovereignty over 
 every foot of her soil except Fort Sumter. Now, that the in- 
 tention is avowed to hold this place as a military post, with a 
 claim of exclusive jurisdiction on the part of a Government 
 foreign to South Carolina, it will be for the authorities to deter- 
 mine what is the course proper to be pursued. It is vain to 
 ignore the fact that South Carolina is, to yours, a foreign Gov- 
 ernment, and how with this patent fact before you, you can 
 consider the continued occupation of a fort in her harbor a 
 pacific measure, and parcel of a peaceful policy, passes certainly 
 my comprehension. 
 
 You say that the fort was garrisoned for our protection, and 
 is held for the same purposes for which it has been ever held, 
 since its construction. Are you not aware, that to hold, in the 
 territory of a foreign power, a fortress against her will, avow- 
 edly for the purpose of protecting her citizens, is, perhaps, the 
 highest insult which one government can offer to another? 
 But Fort Sumter was never garrisoned at all until South Caro- 
 lina had dissolved her connection with your Government. This 
 garrison entered it in the night, with every circumstance of 
 secrecy, after spiking the guns, and burning the gun carriages, 
 and cutting down the flag-staff of an adjacent, fort, which was 
 then abandoned. South Carolina had not taken Fort Sumter 
 into her own possession, only, because of her misplaced confi- 
 dence in a Government which deceived her. A fortress occu- 
 pied under the circumstances above stated, is considered by 
 you, not only as no cause of irritation, but you represent it as 
 held for our protection ! 
 
 Your Excellency's Secretary has indulged in irony on a very 
 grave subject. 
 
 As to the responsibility for consequences, if, indeed, it does 
 rest on us, I can assure your Excellency we are happily uncon- 
 scious of the fact. 
 
 I return to Charleston to-morrow. 
 
 With considerations of high regard, 
 I am, very respectfully, 
 
 I. W. HAYXE, Special Envoy. 
 
Hollinger Corp, 
 pH8.5