As for the southern states seceding after free elections, that's nonsense. All of the south was essentially under martial law. There was no real freedom, and in particular, the voting in Tennessee that is cited as 'for secession' was taken with Confederate soldiers at the poll booths, and it reversed a recent and resounding free vote to deny secession. On that basis alone the Confederacy was a born a bastard and a fraud.
First, the federal government by and large did NOT pay for those forts - all but one of them predated the revolution. But even if we were to assume they did pay for other stuff, the only thing SC siezed in the first days after Anderson's move was those forts.
Southerners had been seizing and stealing Federal property for months before then
Name the property and date of so-called theft then. My timeline shows the very first siezure was about a day after Anderson moved into Sumter and that it was an empty fort.
and in any case, there were the long term operating costs of all sorts which SC had the full benefit of without coming anywhere near adequately paying for them.
Long term operating costs? Please. Past operating costs are SUNK costs of use. They carry over no inherent value with them. If I were to sell you a five year old car but before doing so demanded that you pay me for the "long term operating costs" of driving that car for the previous five years would you be willing to pay it? Unless you are incredibly stupid, I think not.
As for the southern states seceding after free elections, that's nonsense. All of the south was essentially under martial law.
Uh, no it wasn't. Three southern states all had popular referendums on secession (Texas, Virginia, and Tennessee) and all passed in a landslide. The remainder of the states either went out by their legislatures, which had also been popularly elected the previous November, or by a secession convention, which had been popularly elected by way of chosen delegates from each county. In fact the CSA did not even form its military until March 1861, at which point six states had been out of the union for over a month. Thus the timeline itself renders your claim of "martial law" impossible.
There was no real freedom, and in particular, the voting in Tennessee that is cited as 'for secession' was taken with Confederate soldiers at the poll booths
Cite your evidence of that and in doing so account for the fact that about 1/3rd of the Tennesseans voted "no" on the referendum - an unlikely event if "soldiers" as you allege were guiding them all through the polling places.
and it reversed a recent and resounding free vote to deny secession.
No it didn't. Gov. Isham Harris had called together a referendum back on February 9th that to decide whether the state would call a convention together to DECIDE the secession crisis. That vote failed due to opposition in the middle tennessee counties (the western counties were strongly in favor and the eastern ones were strongly opposed). Between then and Fort Sumter secession sentiments grew, especially in response to Lincoln's call for arms. Some Tennessee counties even adopted their own secession ordinances, demanding to be removed from the state and attached to Alabama if the legislature would not act. The legislature finally acted in May and put secession to an up/down vote. Contrary to your fib this was the first and only time this happened in Tennessee. That vote passed in a landslide, carrying the western and central counties while losing only in the eastern ones. In other words, a shift of opinion strongly toward secession had occurred in the middle regions of the state while holding strong in the west, thus giving it a majority.