But would that normally be considered justified? Why or why not?
What legal right did they not have to do so? What legal power was granted Lincoln to keep them in the Union?
We can get into that. But first what legal claim did South Carolina have to Sumter? It belonged to the federal government, built by the federal government on land deeded to it free and clear by the South Carolina legislature. What suddenly made it confederate property without compensation and without the owner having any say in the matter?
Let them go. All that was required.
Let them steal what they want and do nothing?
“But would that normally be considered justified? Why or why not?”
Was our secession from the British Empire - which included seizing property of the Crown - justififed?
“But first what legal claim did South Carolina have to Sumter?”
As much claim as New York had.
“It belonged to the federal government, built by the federal government on land deeded to it free and clear by the South Carolina legislature.”
Which becomes null and void when South Carolina no longer is in the Union and that fort was a direct and immediate threat to that State.
“What suddenly made it confederate property without compensation and without the owner having any say in the matter?”
The State seceded. Therefore, that was a foreign military base.
“Let them steal what they want and do nothing?”
Since much of the tax money collected in the South had been spent on infrastructure in the North, why not?
On another note, why was Jeff Davis never tried?