Who said the fort no longer belonged to them? What rule of law will transfer ownership without the owners consent and without compensation?
Refusing to sit back and allow the South to steal whatever federal property they could get their mitts on is not an act of aggression.
You are so full of it. The south didn't want the norths land. They just wanted to keep their own land from the hands of the north. It was all about the right to secede from the union. The north didn't care about slavery. They needed our cotton and tobacco. Of course that fact stopped being taught years ago when history was rewrote.
“Who said the fort no longer belonged to them?”
SC and the Confereracy.
“What rule of law will transfer ownership without the owners consent and without compensation?”
The same one that allowed the U.S. to keep everything in the colonies after they took it from Great Britain. But I suppose you would argue that we should give that back, too.
“Refusing to sit back and allow the South to steal whatever federal property they could get their mitts on is not an act of aggression.”
I agree. The South did not steal it, they assumed possession. (See above.)