I don't understand what this has to do with Sumter. The land it was built on was the property of South Carolina until it was deeded free and clear to the federal government.
...That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law...
Not uncommon clauses. All that means is that a person could not hide in the fort from civil or criminal procedures. If sued, he could be served. If indicted, he could be arrested. Neither has anything to do with exercising any control, legislative or other, over the property. It was deeded to the U.S. without any rights, titles, or claims remaining with South Carolina.
I agree that an act of Congress certainly would've made the matter much less difficult (and infinitely more honorable), but since that did not happen, I'd venture to say that South Carolina was still entitled to claim the land based on the fact that the Federal government was no longer acting under the civil processes of the State on that land.
Even if you had some evidence that the processes were denied, that does not automatically revoke title. It would be up for a court to decide, wouldn't it?
In other words, when citizens act without the auspices of civil government, to revolt against the civil government, it's rightfully considered a "Rebellion." A group of citizens, working through the Constitutional means provided to them, cannot be considered as such.
Except when the people and the states are not working through constitutional means. Which was the case with the southern acts of unilateral secession.
I suppose I can't argue that with you. You've made some excellent points on this matter, and I'll have to do some more research before I'd even come close to addressing it in more detail. For now, I'll just have to say with the utmost humility that you are correct, and that I am in error. I will condition my response by saying that the Federal government behaved in a completely dishonorable manner by pointing the guns of Fort Sumter, which was intended to defend South Carolina from foreign invaders, inwards towards South Carolina.
Except when the people and the states are not working through constitutional means. Which was the case with the southern acts of unilateral secession.
To that, I must ask: Whom is the sovereign? Whom is the subject?
Whom the Creator? Whom the Creature?