Saying so doesn't make it true. What rule of law is this claim based on? What is the legal basis for your statement? Not the Constitution, that's for sure. It clearly states that only Congress can dispose of federal property. Sumter was indeed federal property, so even with your odd idea of state sovereignty that would still mean Sumter belonged to all the states and not just South Carolina. Wouldn't they be entitled to payment for their share?
i think NOT. furthermore, i think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. i think you know better.
otoh,, since you are ONLY a PROPAGANDIST & nothing more than that, i'm not even sure if you believe that NONSENSE (or for that matter, anything else you rant about.)
free dixie,sw