No, they did not. The operative legislation read as follows:
COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL RELATIONS
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836
The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor’s message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, 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; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.
Also resolved: That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
T. W. GLOVER, C. H. R.
IN SENATE, December 21st, 1836
Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
JACOB WARLY, C. S.
You didn't give a date for the South Carolina legislation you quoted, but if you look it up I believe you will find that the three year period you spoke of expired before the construction of Sumter was ever proposed.
IIRC, that legislation was 1805, and refered to the sites of Ft. Moultrie and other existing coastal fortifications. They were subsequently maintained by the US. The proposal to build Sumter came in the wake of the War of 1812, when Charlstonians felt that the existing defense works were inadeqate against foreign powers, and pushed for the Federal govt. to beef up harbor defense. That's why they were willing to cede the site of Sumter in 1836 for free and extinguish civilian claims (which were a scam).
In any event, clauses reserving rights on lands ceded to the US govt. for fortifications wouldn't be legally valid, under the US Constitution's Article I, Sec 8: "...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, ... over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings..." Though the "purchase" of the site of Sumter involved no exchange of money, it was clearly gifted and there was a grant of title to the Federal govt. South Carolina quitted all claim.