[celmak]

"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."

Yeppers, and all that time since the construction of the fort following the war of 1812 there were no Federal troops in fort Sumter.

[celmak]

PS: The land and the buildings of the fort were clearly Union/Federal government possessions. Even if no one was killed, they still destroyed by force of arms Federal property; an act of war!

[0.E.O]

Yeppers, and all that time since the construction of the fort following the war of 1812 there were no Federal troops in fort Sumter.

Yeah, the fort built itself.

[SeeSharp]

Yeppers, and all that time since the construction of the fort following the war of 1812 there were no Federal troops in fort Sumter.

Why would that make any difference after SC seceded. The US had no jurisdiction after that. And even if you wanted to argue ownership based on some notion of private property rights - a real stretch since the US Government isn't a private entity - you'd still have to yield to SC's right of eminent domain.

You realize the arguments you're making to try to justify Lincoln holding on to that fort are the same arguments the British made when they failed to turn over their forts in the upper mid west after the War of Independence. "We paid for them". "We built them". Etc.