Not utter nonsense but rather simple fact. Statutes may be repealed by the body that passed them to begin with. What don't you understand about that?
Once title was passed to the federal government then South Carolina had no claim to it and no control over it.
Wrong. The SC cession of the Fort Sumter land came in 1827 under the enabling 1794 legislation, which made transfers contingent upon the conditions of the states. SC continued to control the cession as late as 1835 when its legislature, again by statute, overruled the private claim placed upon the same land by an investor.
Since both were acts of statute, and since statutes may be repealed at any time by the body that made them, SC had every power to repeal its earlier cessions in 1861.
Constitutionally only Congress could exercise authority over land obtained with consent of legislature for forts, etc.
No. Constitutionally, Congress could only exercise exclusive "Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts..."
Fort Sumter's land was not purchased, but rather ceded under the 1794 enabling legislation.
Sorry, you're wrong.
No ammount of repetition will ever make that so, non-seq. The fact remains that one was active and conditional while the other was passive and vague. One stated that they WILL attack right then and there upon denial of entry and the other stated that they WILL NOT attack upon being granted entry while offering NO specifics of the time, nature, or means of attack if such entry was denied. No ammount of fibbing, equivocation, or willful avoidance of the issue will ever change those facts.
And yet you keep trying. In the end the fact remains that South Carolina had no claim to Sumter and there was no conflict between what Governor Pickens was told and what the fleet was ordered to do. Regardless of how you twist it.