Absolute hogwash. SC had seceded, and Northern troops and equipment were being removed from all over the South. Those Union troops who stayed behind at Ft Sumter were on foreign soil. There was no agreement about diplomatic missions, embassies, or anything else between the Union and the Confederacy, so the land and the buildings were clearly NOT Union possessions of any kind. The troops there were squatters at best, who refused to leave after repeated peaceful requests and efforts to remove them. At some point, law enforcement will use force to remove those who refuse to comply.
Yeppers, and all that time since the construction of the fort following the war of 1812 there were no Federal troops in fort Sumter.
If you mean that federal troops had been led out at the point of a bayonet while Southern authorities stole every piece of federal property that could get their mitts on, then yes.
Those Union troops who stayed behind at Ft Sumter were on foreign soil.
They were on the property of the federal government.
There was no agreement about diplomatic missions, embassies, or anything else between the Union and the Confederacy, so the land and the buildings were clearly NOT Union possessions of any kind.
If there were no agreements then I assume that means there were no negotiations about the disposition of the property, much less an offer to pay for it?
The troops there were squatters at best, who refused to leave after repeated peaceful requests and efforts to remove them.
They were army soldiers manning their post.
At some point, law enforcement will use force to remove those who refuse to comply.
By bombarding it to pieces?
Ft Sumter was not built on South Carolina soil. It was built on a shoal, and its foundations were laid on stone brought by the US government from NY and MA.
So if anything, it was built on NY and MA soil.
They weren’t “being removed” they were being STOLEN.