[Delhi Rebels]

It was just a matter of pride. It had nothing to do with any actual difficulties with the troops being there. But might I ask you how would the Founders have regarded a continuous occupation by the British of Fort Ticonderoga?

The Founding Fathers did not choose to start their war with the British by attacking Fort Sumter. But had they done so, I think they would have recognized that doing so was certainly an act of war and that the Britihs would have no choice but to respond in kind.

I will also point out that Federal Troops had shortly before abandoned Fort Moultrie in South Carolina. Were it so easy to abandon one Fort, why not another?

They also gave up Castle Pinkney and the Charelston Armory and for the same reason; none of those three were defensible. Sumter was.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Founding Fathers did not choose to start their war with the British by attacking Fort Sumter. But had they done so, I think they would have recognized that doing so was certainly an act of war and that the British would have no choice but to respond in kind.

The point remains, would we have insisted the British Leave an occupied American Fort? If you don't think the Founders would have tolerated it, why should you think anyone else should tolerate it?

They also gave up Castle Pinkney and the Charelston Armory and for the same reason; none of those three were defensible. Sumter was.

Apparently it wasn't. They surrendered it, if you will remember. But the point remains, why should you need to defend a Fort that is not in your own country?