Ok so basically you're arguing in favor of states deciding to have slaves

C'mon man you're better than that

And Fort Sumter was built on South Carolinian territory, meaning that the state of South Carolina had the right to request the fort back.

No, my argument is that Lincoln did *not* have the right to have his way on the issue.

Being a fort held by federal troops. Just like comparing Fort Benning GA (federal) to Camp Blanding FL (state)

Slavery’s bad, but getting rid of it in the dumbest way possible is far worse.

Sacrificing hundreds of thousands of men, economically destroying the south, and dividing the country forever was not worth ending the institution.

Who was the owner of the land prior to the US Army?

Hence why Lincoln is the incarnation of the saying “the Road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

South Carolina.

Not sure how it changed hands but eminent domain law exists and does allow the federal government to forcibly purchase land for public use. Military use is public use since the public benefits from it.

South Carolina owned the island and lended it to the Federal Government in 1830, which they used to build a fort on the island. When South Carolina seceded from the Union, they had the right to demand the island back.

So the title was held by the State of South Carolina, and not by a private person?

It’s similar to the issue of Hong Kong and other land grants in other countries. If the current government that loaned the land to the other power is disposed of and changed into a new government, they have the right to demand the land back if they so chose.

It depends on what the new government wants to do. Communist China recognized the former agreements with Hong Kong and allowed for Britain to maintain control until the contract ran out, since they didn’t want to instigate a war with a nuclear power.

The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor’s message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

Sorry for the text wall but that is the exact text of the law passed by SC which ceded the land and any claim, to the feds

That was done when it was still a state. South Carolina seceded from the Union and, therefore, the contracts made while as a state are null-en-void.

Meaning that they have a right to demand the island back if and when they chose to do so.

No, they don't

First, there is no right to secede

Second, you cannot as a government entity make an agreement and then change your mind later even if secession is legal. Secession does nothing to alter the fact that South Carolina is a government entity.

The State of South Carolina as a government exists regardless of if it is part of the United States or the Confederate States

The same state militia, state laws, state officials, etc exist in perpetuity regardless of any association with the US

“First there is not right to secede.”

Again, anything and everything is legal unless specified otherwise.

Secession is legal.

So murder is legal since the Constitution doesn't address it

Straw man.

Secession is a Constitutional matter.

And the Constitution does not say anything against it and it can be inferred as a right of a state via the 10th Amendment clause.

(I.e. any powers not granted nor specified to be powers of the federal government are reserved for the states and the citizens of the United States.)

Ergo, secession is legal.

You know by your own argument then the Confederates didnt have a right to habeas corpus

The right to murder is not granted to the federal government. Thus it goes to the states or the people

The right to own slaves as well

Prior to the passing of relevant amendments

And as seccesion isnt covered in the constitution and the constitution binds the states to the federal government. It would be logical to require the government and state to determine the seccesion terms. You know like giving fort sumter to them legally.

You would have a better foundation by standing on the natural right of rebellion in the case of extreme oppression, which morally justified our own war of independence

The whole seccesion was impulsive childish and considerably less than legally acceptable way to do it. They literally rage quit the union on only their terms.

But we find no extreme oppression in the south to justify it. From your argument all we have are that the rich people of the south were scared the government was gonna free the slaves

I can agree with that actually