Now you're just being silly.
The real estate was always there and always belonged to the states in which it was located.
No it did not. It was the property of the U.S. government, which exercised exclusive legislation over it through Congress. The local states had no claims to it at all.
As for the rest, I would assume Southern revenue cutters were paid for by the tax dollars they collected. I'm sure the Confederates were not interested in taking any which were paid for by Northern taxes in Northern waters.
Now you're just being sillier. You really think that someone in DC kept a ledger? South Carolina finally paid $10,000 in taxes so now we can build that revenue cutter they always wanted, something like that? Really?
Look, a "wife took shots at you" constitutes a threat of being killed by her actions. Blasting the rocks at Ft. Sumter never rose to the level of a threat against the continued existence of Washington D.C. Washington D.C. was never at risk of being killed by what happened at Ft. Sumter.
Sillier still. So if that wife of your's sat on the front lawn and blazed away at the house without hitting you, the police would come and say, "No laws broken since you weren't hurt. I don't suppose there is any way we could find out, do you?
It is silly to demand an accounting before you saddle someone with an "owed" debt?
Today the Nation owes ~17 trillion dollars in admitted debt. it more likely owes 100 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.
What do you think my share of the debt ought to be? How much of it was run up with my consent, rather than my screaming at Washington D.C.'s spending policies for decades?
Do I want to walk away from that debt which I didn't create, got little if any benefit from, and which was spent over my objections? Yes. That others would heap debt on me against my will does not make me morally obligated to pay that debt.
No, an appropriate accounting is not silly. I say the people who ran up the debt, should be the ones obligated to pay it.
So if that wife of your's sat on the front lawn and blazed away at the house without hitting you, the police would come and say, "No laws broken since you weren't hurt. I don't suppose there is any way we could find out, do you?
You insist on being obtuse. You cannot characterize a wife as having "blazed away" if what she did could not possibly threaten the Husband's life.
You keep trying to make Ft. Sumter into a DEADLY THREAT when it was nothing of the sort. The Union was never in any danger over what happened at Ft. Sumter. Therefore if your attempt at an analogy implies danger, it is a flawed analogy.
I'm beginning to think your cognitive powers don't rise to the level of comprehending analogies. You Keep wanting to make a pin prick into a deadly threat. You keep trying to force a situation in which no possible threat to the Union was the equivalent of a wife "blazing away" at a husband.
Either you don't understand how analogies work, or you are being deliberately dishonest. If there is a third possibility, I don't see it.