>>>Sumter was built by the federal government on land deeded to it free and clear by an act of the South Carolina legislature. What rule of law magically transferred ownership to the confederacy?<<<
A deed is a contract, and that contract was broken when the United States Government denied the Southern states their retained right to secede from the Union as guaranteed by the 9th Amendment to the Constitution. The instant the contract was broken, the “Federal Government” became the Confederate Government, and the right to all “federal” property in its boundaries was inherited.
>>>As commander of the army forces in the Charleston area, Major Anderson had authority of all the army facilities in the area. That included Moultrie and Castle Pinkney as well as Sumter. Under instructions given him by Major Buell in December, he was well under authority to move his troops to Sumter if their safety required it.<<<
When Anderson occupied Fort Sumter, property that belonged to the federal government of the Confederate States, he committed an act of war, as did his superiors who were in collusion with him.
Nonsense. Ownership of the land was transferred to the United States by the South Carolina legislature free and clear. They retained no legal claim to the property, and Constitutionally could exercise no control over the land. Sumter was the property of the federal government. And I believe you are misquoting the 10th Amendment, not the 9th.
When Anderson occupied Fort Sumter, property that belonged to the federal government of the Confederate States, he committed an act of war, as did his superiors who were in collusion with him.
But the idea that Sumter magically changed ownership is absolutely ridiculous and unsupported by any law whatsoever. The only way Sumter could change hands from U.S. control to confederate control would be through an act of Congress. Or by an act of war. The South chose the later.