[PeaRidge]

The property known as Ft. Sumter was owned by the states, and seized by Union troops in December of 1860, without orders or permission. That was stated as fact by the President.

Union troops were not rightful owners.

It did not preclude the state of South Carolina and the Federal government from working out some compensation plan to reimburse the Union for the sale of Ft. Sumter to the city of Charleston.

And, of course, that takes this discussion to the fact that President Lincoln refused to negotiate a peaceful resolution, and immediately sent Union warships to Charleston harbor to initiate hostilities.

[rockrr]

The property known as Ft. Sumter was owned by the states, and seized by Union troops in December of 1860, without orders or permission. That was stated as fact by the President.

Continue to believe that if you wish. It is incorrect and fairly dishonest, but I understand your emotional attachment.

Union troops were not rightful owners.

I never claimed that they were, but they had a preeminent right and duty to be there and it was blatantly illegal to interfere with them and fire upon them.

And, of course, that takes this discussion to the fact that President Lincoln refused to negotiate a peaceful resolution, and immediately sent Union warships to Charleston harbor to initiate hostilities.

As was his right and responsibility. The south initiated hostilities and reaped the whirlwind of their own construction.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The property known as Ft. Sumter was owned by the states, and seized by Union troops in December of 1860, without orders or permission. That was stated as fact by the President.

You know better than this. Anderson's orders were to hold all the United States forts around Charleston, and to use his judgement about how to do that. He felt that the best place to hold with his meager force was Sumter. But it's absurd to say that he seized it when it was already under his command.