“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?
Before changing the subject how about answering the question?
As much claim as New York had.
If both had a claim to it why was South Carolina justified in seizing it without compensating New York for their share?
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.
Based on what rule of law?
The State seceded. Therefore, that was a foreign military base
So it had a foreign owner. It was still the property of someone else. What gave South Carolina any legal claim to it?
Since much of the tax money collected in the South had been spent on infrastructure in the North, why not?
Because it didn't belong to South Carolina and the rightful owner wasn't interested in just giving it away. That's why not.
On another note, why was Jeff Davis never tried?
Still trying to change the subject? Ok. The reason was the 14th Amendment. Now it's your turn to actually answer some of my questions.