Assuming Country B began preparations to use that base as a jump off point for an invasion of Country A, all other matters being neutral, Country B would clearly have the right to consider the buildup a hostile act and respond with force, even preemptively.
Particular to Fort Sumter, why would you assume that it belonged to the Northern States? Common property is generally dissolved between the partners when a partnership is dissolved. Clearly there is a strong argument that, at a minimum, all federal property within a seceding state would automatically revert to that state. I don't recall the CSA claiming ownership of any territory outside of their borders, although they would have had the same claim to federal lands in the North, as the North had on federal lands in the South. The peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia is a good example. Did all of the governmental lands in Slovakia continue to be held by the Czech Republic? No, they did not.
South Carolina spent several months requesting that Fort Sumter be placed back into their possession. But alas, not all divorces are amiable.
First of all sir, I applaud you..
You are having a reasonable discussion without emotions...
You are not accusing me of things that are just not true, and are not accusing me of being a “Yankee” supporter, there are things that I agree with and disagree with regarding the politics of the war between the states....
Having said that, sumpter was an island, not a property sitting in the middle of a state, and if I am correct (please correct me if I am wrong) federal installations within the confederates states were abandoned, except for the one that sat in the water... a territorial dispute, yes, but a reason to start a shooting war, no....
to state that sumpter was going to be used as a staging point for an invasion is speculation at this point..
one could say the technology did not exist at that time for a full fledged amphibious assault, and considering the enormous firepower the confederacy had surrounding the island, it would be safe to say that even with sumpter resupplied, any landing or attack would have been doomed to failure...
No, my contention is that a politician (davis) wanted a shooting war, was looking for a reason for it, and found one...
But this one was doomed to failure, not because of right or wrong, not because of fighting spirit or personal beliefs of the men involved, but, to put it quite simply, logistics..
they did not have enough stuff, and very few ways to get what they needed..
their only chance of success was to strike quickly and decisively... It almost worked