Objective reality decides. California is not essential, but those military bases are. Army and Air force bases can be moved, but Naval bases cannot.
Wasn't control of the Mississippi essential to our national security in 1860?
"Control" insofar as hostile powers would not be allowed to use it to invade, but that wasn't in the cards and was not a serious consideration.
And who says the national interest prevails over the will of a "sovereign state"? You certainly don't believe that was true in 1860.
Sure I do, but nothing the South had was essential to the security of the rest of the Union.
You support the Confederacy in spite of all they were trying to do to hurt the country they were leaving.
What were they trying to do to "hurt" the country they were leaving? Stop paying the bulk of it's bills? Seems like the 20 million in the North should have been paying most of their own bills anyways.
If the federal government has legal title it has legal title.
"Legal title" is meaningless when the foundation for it changes. George III owned all the land in the Colonies, but when independence was declared, he ceased to own it.
Abraham Lincoln said that people have a right to own the land on which they reside, and I think he is right about this.
This is another aspect of longstanding and heavily populated military bases. They have more or less permanent "residents".
Anderson occupied Ft. Sumter for four months. Had a Federal garrison occupied it since 1800, it would have been a different matter I think. Anderson took it, and this after the South Carolinians had been told it would be turned over to them by the then Secretary of War.
Also the Lincoln administration itself had led people to believe that all the way up to April of 1861 when Lincoln sent his war fleet.
For real? I'm not sure he literally owned everything, but he ceased to own what he did own when the peace treaty was signed. Before that ownership was ... er ... rather hotly contested. Even then, he was very slow about giving up Detroit, because he thought we hadn't been keeping our side of the bargain, or maybe just because he wanted to.
Anderson occupied Ft. Sumter for four months. Had a Federal garrison occupied it since 1800, it would have been a different matter I think.
Good. That is another telling admission on your part. I don't think it matters, though. After everything else the US lost, their holding on to one or two forts was not the great threat or insult that secessionists made it out to be.
Anderson took it, and this after the South Carolinians had been told it would be turned over to them by the then Secretary of War.
Do you mean John Floyd, Buchanan's Secretary of War, who favored secession and became a Confederate general during the war? That John Floyd? He was shipping guns South where the rebels could get their hands on them. He was also involved in financial misconduct.
If that's the Secretary of War you are talking about, you have managed to kill two birds with one stone. First, it's understandable that when Floyd left office with the shadow of corruption and treason hanging over him that any promises or agreements he made would have to be reconsidered and could be revoked. If Alger Hiss made commitments to the Soviets, would we really expect the US to be bound by those promises once Hiss's treachery had been exposed?
Secondly, all this talk of "cronyism" starts to look differently. It certainly wasn't foreign to Southerners, Democrats, or slaveowners. Pierce refused to prosecute a corrupt territorial governor. Buchanan was accused of bribing legislators and trading contracts for campaign contributions. Stephen Douglas was working hand in hand with the railroads to their mutual benefit. Cronyism is a fact of life in government and no party has a monopoly on corruption.
Objective reality decides. California is not essential, but those military bases are. Army and Air force bases can be moved, but Naval bases cannot.
That is subjective. Californians - if they seceded - would not agree. They might think that those bases were necessary to their own survival, faced with a powerful, predatory US. They would make all the arguments that you make on behalf of South Carolina. Think of Russia and Ukraine. Russia might think that bases in Crimea are necessary for its survival, but Ukraine may believe that Russian bases on what was Ukrainian territory constitute a threat to Ukranian security and independence.
If the federal government is to be the judge of what is necessary to its security, then you agree with what I have been saying for years and you admit that you were wrong. In 1860, the country was falling apart. Militants and Confederate secession commissioners were inciting secession in the Upper South and the Border States. State militias were training and moving against federal property, raiding, stealing, and occupying. The national capital was in danger of being surrounded and occupied by the rebels. There was even talk of parts of the country that didn't have slavery breaking away. It seemed with good reason as though the country's survival was at stake.
Under such circumstances, it wasn't too much for the federal government, legitimately concerned with the country's "objective" security, to want to hold on to some of its legitimately owned property in the South. That could help the government to save face and slow down the growing chaos and anarchy. It would establish confidence that the constitutionally elected government could preserve order. A fort or other installation would also serve as a bargaining chip in future negotiations. Nothing could be more reasonable than that, and intelligent and thoughtful Southerners recognized that.
What were they trying to do to "hurt" the country they were leaving?
I have addressed that many times, even in this very post. They were organizing a military, stealing federal weapons, and inciting secessionism in other states. We would recognize any group doing that as a threat to our country.
But I don't think you are really serious about any of this. You hate New York and California and probably the other Democrat states, and would deny any prerogatives to a government that they have a say in. For some reason, you love the South and will always take its side. You forgive the Confederates even for trying to destroy the country. And you wouldn't be opposed to federal strong-arming if you controlled the government. Your chatter is all just empty rationalizations of what you feel emotionally.