And you would support him and believe him to be in the right?
It helped pay for the land?
In a way, yes. The site deeded to the federal government by South Carolina was under water. Sumter is actually build on landfill, granite hauled down from New England. New York taxes helped pay for that.
The rule of “it’s in my territory now”.
AKA "Stick 'em up. This is a robbery?"
Their rightful owner was the States, as THEY were the rightful owner of the government.
You're getting sillier by the moment. Constitutionally only Congress can dispose of federal property, and only the federal government can own it. There is no joint ownership so once they deeded the property to the government the state was no longer the rightful owner. They had no claims to it at all.
The government was considered in material breach of the contract.
How so?
Just responding in kind.
No, you've got your back against the wall and you're reverting to type. Whenever any of you Southron types realize they're being made fool of they resort to calling their opponent a liberal or, in your case, become condescending.
No, that’s not the right answer. The reason given by Chase does not mean the 14th pardoned Davis of a charge of treason.
No, passage of the 14th Amendment didn't mean Davis didn't commit treason. It meant that he couldn't be tried and punished for it since the 14th Amendment had, in effect, already punished him.
If secession was treason, why no trial?
There were proceedural delays but the trial was planned.
Why hold him at Fort Liberty in solitary and then just let him go.
In the first place he was held in Fortress Monroe. In the second place he was out on bail for much of the time. In the third place the ratification of the 14th Amendment prevented it.
They’d already violated his rights by holding him without trial or even indictment for two years. Double jeopardy only applies if he had first been tried for the crime.
Davis was indicted for treason in May 1866. And the 5th Amendment says that "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." It's usually used to prevent trial twice for the same crime, but the Southern leadership had been punished for their actions by the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the source of the punishment, the Constitution prevents being punished twice for the same crime. Or so said Chief Justice Chase. I disagree with him BTW and think that Davis should have been tried. But I don't have a say in the matter.
What actually happened is the government was wary of actually addressing the legality of secession. This provided an out. The one, later, case that actually addressed it (White, as I recall) just declared it “illegal” with no basis in law.
Just because you disagree with the ruling doesn't mean it had 'no basis in law'. But hey, no basis in law hasn't stopped you from insisting Sumter belonged to South Carolina so I guess it's to be expected. Regardless, you might want to read the Texas v White decision and read Chief Justice Chase's decision. It's really rather interesting.
Of course South Carolina had claim to Ft. Sumter
Charleston Harbor and on Beaufort River, various forts and fortifications, and sites for the erection of forts, on the following conditions, viz.:
“That, if the United States shall not, within three years from the passing of this act, and notification thereof by the Governor of this State to the Executive of the United States, repair the fortifications now existing thereon
or build such other forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein; in such case this grant or cession shall be void and of no effect.”—(”Statutes at Large of South Carolina,” vol. v, p. 501.)
It will hardly be contended that the conditions of this grant were fulfilled, and, if it be answered that the State did not demand the restoration of the forts or sites, the answer certainly fails after 1860, when the controversy arose, and the unfounded assertion was made that those forts and sites had been purchased with the money, and were therefore the property, of the United States. The terms of the cession sufficiently manifest that they were free-will offerings of such forts and sites as belonged to the State; and public functionaries were bound to know that, by the United States law of March 20, 1794, it was provided “that no purchase shall be made where such lands are the property of a State.”—(Act to provide for the defense of certain ports and harbors of the United States.)
The stipulations made by Virginia, in ceding the ground for Fortress Monroe and the Rip Raps, on the 1st of March, 1821, are as follows:
“An Act ceding to the United States the lands on Old Point Comfort, and the shoal called the Rip Raps.
“Whereas, It is shown to the present General Assembly that the Government of the United States is solicitous that certain lands at Old Point Comfort, and at the shoal called the Rip Raps, should be, with the right of property
and entire jurisdiction thereon, vested in the said United States for the purpose of fortification and other objects of national defense:
“1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That it shall be lawful and
proper for the Governor of this Commonwealth, by conveyance or deeds in writing under his hand and the seal of the State, to transfer, assign, and make over unto the said United States the right of property and title, as well
as all the jurisdiction which this Commonwealth possesses over the lands and shoal at Old Point Comfort and the Rip Raps:...
“2. And be it further enacted, That, should the said United States at any time abandon the said lands and shoal, or appropriate them to any other purposes than those indicated in the preamble to this act, that then, and in
that case, the same shall revert to and revest in this Commonwealth.”112
By accepting such grants, under such conditions, the Government of the United States assented to their propriety, and the principle that holds good in any one case is of course good in another. ——Jefferson Davis