Once again you result to personal insults when you have no argument.
To say that there is some legal basis for Lincoln's claim to Sumter after South Carolina seceded is reasoning in a circle.
I have no arguement? I ask for the legal justification for your claim that Sumter magically became the property of the confederacy and you offer nothing. You can't offer anything so you resort to making things up. That isn't insult, that's fact.
To say that there is some legal basis for Lincoln's claim to Sumter after South Carolina seceded is reasoning in a circle.
Utter nonsense. Sumter was the property of the federal government. It was built on land deeded to it by the South Carolina legislature. South Carolina gave up all legal claims to it when they gave that land to the federal government. Constitutionally only Congress can dispose of federal property, and that didn't happen. So when I ask you what rule of law transferred ownership, without the approval of the owners and without compensation I might add, you can come up with nothing except the product of your imagination.