It is not clear what about those facts you consider "dishonest or incorrect", but if you will consult "Days of Defiance" by Maury Klein, or most any author you would choose, you will find that Ft. Sumter was seized by Union Major Robert Anderson on December 26, 1860. It can be verified that he was warned just before this movement not to make any "vain attempt to save (his command) ", and that "this was not the President’s wishes."
Then just following Anderson's unauthorized move, in a letter to Major Anderson dated 27 December 1860, Buchanan's Secretary of War John B. Floyd wrote,
"Intelligence has reached here this morning that you have abandoned Fort Moultrie, spiked your guns, burned the carriages, and gone to Fort Sumter, It is not believed, because there is no order for any such movement".
In a meeting between President Buchanan, and Senators Jefferson Davis and Robert Hunter who were demanding an explanation of Anderson’s move, the President said, “You gentlemen know better than anybody that this is not only without but against my orders. It is against my policy.”
Given these facts, perhaps, you can provide something other than your opinion to further clarify these events.
I never claimed that they were (Union troops were not rightful owners), but they had a preeminent right and duty to be there and it was blatantly illegal to interfere with them and fire upon them.
So, as you can readily understand, the Union troops that occupied Sumter were not under orders to do so, and therefore had no "preeminent right" or "duty" to be there.
I will leave it to you to provide the facts, not your emotional opinions, to support your assertion that the Charleston harbor defenses did not have the right to fire on them when the Union fleet appeared on the horizon on the evening of April 11, 1861.
Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.
"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
Jacob Warly, C. S.
This means that it wasn't South Carolina's to fool with. Pickens knew it (just like you do) but relied on a feckless Buchanan to steal what clearly didn't belong to him.
Anderson was charged with defending several garrisons, including Sumter. It was his responsibility. He was there by order. He didn't "seize anything because the fortification was in his charge. His orders came from Buell on Dec. 11, 1860:
... you are to hold possession of the forts in this harbor, and if attacked you are to defend yourself to the last extremity. The smallness of your force will not permit you, perhaps, to occupy more than one of the three forts, but an attack on or attempt to take possession of any one of them will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you may deem most proper to increase its power of resistance. You are also authorized to take similar steps whenever you have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act.
So, as you can readily understand, the Union troops that occupied Sumter were under orders to do so, and therefore had a perfect "preeminent right" or "duty" to be there. The rebels did not.