[DoodleDawg]

And since that territory was no longer part of the United States, and since the United States and the Confederacy didn't have a treaty concerning such forts; the presence of the Fort became a hostile military action against the Confederacy.

Again, why? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you were correct and Charleston was no longer part of the U.S., what hostile action had the fort taken?

[HandyDandy]

It does seem that sailor76 is saying that at the moment South Carolina declared secession, ”the presence of the Fort became a hostile military action”. As if knowing that Ft Sumter merely was present in S.C., S.C would know that the moment they seceded, the mere presence of the Fort became a hostile military action. As if the Fort didn’t exist until S.C. declared secession. Or, as if S.C. caused a hostile military action to be perpetrated upon themselves (by the presence of the Fort) by seceding. It’s a tough one.

[DiogenesLamp]

Threatened to fire cannons into Charleston.

Took the fort in the middle of the Night without warning or explanation after having led the Confederates to believe that all such works would soon be turned over to them.

Basically being lying dicks, so nobody trusted them anymore.

Oh, and Anderson also informed them that he would fire on the Confederate batteries if they engaged those ships which were sent to attack them.