Remembering Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

[bripat9643]

The pro-CSA folks clearly demonstrate that Lincoln was right.

Some of these people go to bed at night, smiling, happy they are defending slavers.

People who raped, beat, tore families apart, and fought to the death to defend it.


Karma may set them straight -- at some point.

It never fails, when the worshippers of the Lincoln cult can't defend the crimes of their patron saint with facts, they invariably end up accusing his critics of "defending slavery." Apparently they believe this kind of sleazy behaviour is to be respected or even admired.

Lincoln was a great man. Lincoln was a god

I know you believe Lincoln was a god. The reality is that he was a despicable mass murdering tyrant. That's the god you worship. He is Baal.

 

[bripat9643]

Robert E. Lee was a great American.

He had to get a pardon. He was a criminal and a traitor

As was Jefferson Davis, who got caught trying to run away in a woman's dress.

Wrong again and as usual. Jefferson Davis when fleeing could not find his overcoat, so he threw his wife's raglan on his shoulders and ran. That's a far cry from cross dressing. Why do you have to distort the truth?

They have to lie about the Civil War because the truth is so appalling and embarrassing for them.

 

[bripat9643]

Whatever the confederate states stated as their reason for seceding, the fact is that Lincoln invaded them, not the other way around, and his motive was to enforce the Morrill Tariff.

Who started the hostilities? Sure wasn't Lincoln and if the south had not who knows what might have happened.

The truth is the south did secede. Then they attacked the Federal government and war between the two countries was on. The south lost and the victorious north was very generous with their concurred land. If the numskull southerners would not have murdered Lincoln I am thinking it would have ended up even better for the south.

Lincoln deserved to be shot for the same reason that an arsonist deserves to die in a fire he started. Lincoln started a war of Americans killing Americans, so there's no injustice whatsoever when one of those Americans comes gunning for him. In fact, it's morally neutral, a natural vicissitude of war. He killed 600,000 Americans, hell yeah shoot him! Twice!!

The South shot first...firing on a Federal Installation. They deserved all they got and more....there should be a manditory holiday for Tecumseh Sherman.

Actually, the fort was in a state that had already seceded and had formed no treaty with the United States to have a base there. But more than that, the commanding officer was given the offer to surrender peacefully and didn't do so, so force was used. Once South Carolina became an independent state, it was their prerogative to do what they want with their own territory.

The fort was a federal fort as is all federal property in the U.S. even today. It did not belong to the "state" before they declared secession, it most certainly did not afterwards. The U.S. government was not surrender monkeys....but neither were they aggressors. That was the South. Doesn't surprise me....when you brutalize other people, you turn into bullies.

How many times does this have to be explained before you Lincoln worshipping retards get it right? Whether it was federal "property" is beside the issue. It was not federal territory after SC seceded.

 

[candycorn]

The pro-CSA folks clearly demonstrate that Lincoln was right.

Some of these people go to bed at night, smiling, happy they are defending slavers.

People who raped, beat, tore families apart, and fought to the death to defend it.


Karma may set them straight -- at some point.

It never fails, when the worshippers of the Lincoln cult can't defend the crimes of their patron saint with facts, they invariably end up accusing his critics of "defending slavery." Apparently they believe this kind of sleazy behaviour is to be respected or even admired.

Lincoln was a great man. Lincoln was a god

I know you believe Lincoln was a god. The reality is that he was a despicable mass murdering tyrant. That's the god you worship. He is Baal.

Far from a God.Well deserving of his place on Mt. Rushmore as one of our greatest Presidents.

 

[candycorn]

Who started the hostilities? Sure wasn't Lincoln and if the south had not who knows what might have happened.

The truth is the south did secede. Then they attacked the Federal government and war between the two countries was on. The south lost and the victorious north was very generous with their concurred land. If the numskull southerners would not have murdered Lincoln I am thinking it would have ended up even better for the south.

Lincoln deserved to be shot for the same reason that an arsonist deserves to die in a fire he started. Lincoln started a war of Americans killing Americans, so there's no injustice whatsoever when one of those Americans comes gunning for him. In fact, it's morally neutral, a natural vicissitude of war. He killed 600,000 Americans, hell yeah shoot him! Twice!!

The South shot first...firing on a Federal Installation. They deserved all they got and more....there should be a manditory holiday for Tecumseh Sherman.

Actually, the fort was in a state that had already seceded and had formed no treaty with the United States to have a base there. But more than that, the commanding officer was given the offer to surrender peacefully and didn't do so, so force was used. Once South Carolina became an independent state, it was their prerogative to do what they want with their own territory.

The fort was a federal fort as is all federal property in the U.S. even today. It did not belong to the "state" before they declared secession, it most certainly did not afterwards. The U.S. government was not surrender monkeys....but neither were they aggressors. That was the South. Doesn't surprise me....when you brutalize other people, you turn into bullies.

How many times does this have to be explained before you Lincoln worshipping retards get it right? Whether it was federal "property" is beside the issue. It was not federal territory after SC seceded.

You're right, it belonged to the American Indians....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

He wasn't ever charged with anything, so why would he need a pardon?

You're disagreeing with Lee himself. D'Oh!

IDIOT!!!! Lee himself applied for a pardon. He was a confessed criminal and traitor:

One minor error: it reports that when Lee applied for a Presidential Pardon, he failed to include the Oath of Allegiance as required by law. A few years ago the oath turned up, misfiled, perhaps deliberately by someone who did not want to see Lee pardoned. Bob Huddleston

Pardon of Robert E. Lee

---​

On a spring day 140 years ago, Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee met face to face in the parlor of Wilmer McLean's house in Appomattox Court House, Virginia. On that historic occasion, April 9, 1865, the two generals formalized the surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, thus bringing an end to four years of fighting between North and South.

After agreeing upon terms of the surrender, the generals each selected three officers to oversee the surrender and parole of Lee's army. Later that day, Lee and six of his staff signed a document granting their parole.

On May 29, 1865, President Andrew Johnson issued a Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon to persons who had participated in the rebellion against the United States. There were fourteen excepted classes, though, and members of those classes had to make special application to the President.

Lee sent an application to Grant and wrote to President Johnson on June 13, 1865:

Being excluded from the provisions of amnesty & pardon contained in the proclamation of the 29th Ulto; I hereby apply for the benefits, & full restoration of all rights & privileges extended to those included in its terms. I graduated at the Mil. Academy at West Point in June 1829. Resigned from the U.S. Army April '61. Was a General in the Confederate Army, & included in the surrender of the Army of N. Va. 9 April '65.​

General Robert E. Lee s Parole and Citizenship


Confederate Pardons - Genealogy Today​

 

[candycorn]

He wasn't ever charged with anything, so why would he need a pardon?

You're disagreeing with Lee himself. D'Oh!

IDIOT!!!! Lee himself applied for a pardon. He was a confessed criminal and traitor:

One minor error: it reports that when Lee applied for a Presidential Pardon, he failed to include the Oath of Allegiance as required by law. A few years ago the oath turned up, misfiled, perhaps deliberately by someone who did not want to see Lee pardoned. Bob Huddleston

Pardon of Robert E. Lee

---​

On a spring day 140 years ago, Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee met face to face in the parlor of Wilmer McLean's house in Appomattox Court House, Virginia. On that historic occasion, April 9, 1865, the two generals formalized the surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, thus bringing an end to four years of fighting between North and South.

After agreeing upon terms of the surrender, the generals each selected three officers to oversee the surrender and parole of Lee's army. Later that day, Lee and six of his staff signed a document granting their parole.

On May 29, 1865, President Andrew Johnson issued a Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon to persons who had participated in the rebellion against the United States. There were fourteen excepted classes, though, and members of those classes had to make special application to the President.

Lee sent an application to Grant and wrote to President Johnson on June 13, 1865:

Being excluded from the provisions of amnesty & pardon contained in the proclamation of the 29th Ulto; I hereby apply for the benefits, & full restoration of all rights & privileges extended to those included in its terms. I graduated at the Mil. Academy at West Point in June 1829. Resigned from the U.S. Army April '61. Was a General in the Confederate Army, & included in the surrender of the Army of N. Va. 9 April '65.​

General Robert E. Lee s Parole and Citizenship


Confederate Pardons - Genealogy Today​

Benghazi!

 

[hortysir]

The pro-CSA folks clearly demonstrate that Lincoln was right.

Some of these people go to bed at night, smiling, happy they are defending slavers.

People who raped, beat, tore families apart, and fought to the death to defend it.


Karma may set them straight -- at some point.

It never fails, when the worshippers of the Lincoln cult can't defend the crimes of their patron saint with facts, they invariably end up accusing his critics of "defending slavery." Apparently they believe this kind of sleazy behaviour is to be respected or even admired.

Lincoln was a great man. Lincoln was a god

The pro-CSA folks clearly demonstrate that Lincoln was right.

Some of these people go to bed at night, smiling, happy they are defending slavers.

People who raped, beat, tore families apart, and fought to the death to defend it.


Karma may set them straight -- at some point.

It never fails, when the worshippers of the Lincoln cult can't defend the crimes of their patron saint with facts, they invariably end up accusing his critics of "defending slavery." Apparently they believe this kind of sleazy behaviour is to be respected or even admired.

Lincoln committed no crimes. The South did, and Lincoln saw to it that they paid for it. I sort of wish Reconstruction was still going on....

Even so, the lowest estimate is 13,535 arrests from February 15, 1862, to the end of the war
The Lincoln Administration and Arbitrary Arrests A Reconsideration

 

[Toro]

Cheap labor in the 1860's isn't what cheap labor is today. We didn't have this big consumer class in developed nations that we do today so when the CSA tried to sell it's cheap goods in places like Europe, they would have been likely locked out due to nationalistic reasons; above and beyond the brutal slavery that allowed such production.

My argument isn't what would have happened in 1860, but what would have happened in 1960. My guess is that the trajectory of the South's economy wouldn't have been much different well into the 20th century. However, the South benefited greatly from the migration of northern populations and the manufacturing base to the South beginning in the 1960s and the accelerating in the 1970s. Had the South been a separate country, that is unlikely to have happened since the South would have been a separate country, and the cost differential wouldn't have been great enough to move plants to Tennessee, South Carolina, etc.

Instead, the migration most likely would have gone to Arizona, Nevada, Utah, etc., and similar states with right-to-work laws and labor economics.

It's also likely that the South, given their Segregation laws, would have been shunned and shut out of many global markets, like South Africa.

 

[bripat9643]

You missed my larger point that the South would not have been cut off from business dealings with the United States. In fact, if the North had ceased aggression, business would have resumed like it had before, sans tariffs. There was just too much money to be made from the slave trade, which New York and Massechusettes operated. You have the unenviable task of demonstrating that much would have changed simply because there were two countries instead of one. Just like we resumed trade very quickly with Britain after the revolutionary war, the same would have occurred between the United States and the new Confederation of States. Good luck demonstrating otherwise.

I never said that trade wouldn't have resumed. It would have. It's not about trade. It's about capital flows and economic development. Since the South wouldn't have been part of the United States, the manufacturing base wouldn't have migrated south for at least a generation since there would have been no population migration and the cost of doing so would have been high due to the tariffs on manufactured goods that were falling but still significant. The South would have been subject to international trade laws that all other countries are subject. And given the disapproval of racist countries, it's likely that the South would have been shut out of global markets like South Africa.

The onus is on the apologists for the racist Confederacy to explain why the United States would have treated the Confederacy differently than any other country.

What a load of horseshit. There isn't a shred of evidence to support any of the swill in your post. After the war it took far longer than a generation for any "manufacturing base" to migrate South. It took 4 or generations. What population migration has to do with it is beyond me. The Confederacy reduced it's tariffs to almost zero, which is one of the main reasons the federal government declared war on it. Northern manufacturers were used to having a captive customer base, and without those tariffs Southerners would have been free to get all their manufactured goods from Europe rather than the weasels in the Northern states.

What are these "international trade laws" that would have prevented the South from buying finished goods from Europe as they had been doing for decades?

 

[bripat9643]

Robert E. Lee was a great American.

He had to get a pardon. He was a criminal and a traitor

He wasn't ever charged with anything, so why would he need a pardon?

Gee, neither was Lincoln...but you call him a criminal.

So you believe all criminals are charged with their crimes? Really?

The stuff you turds call "logic" is utterly hilarious.

 

[bripat9643]

The pro-CSA folks clearly demonstrate that Lincoln was right.

Some of these people go to bed at night, smiling, happy they are defending slavers.

People who raped, beat, tore families apart, and fought to the death to defend it.


Karma may set them straight -- at some point.

It never fails, when the worshippers of the Lincoln cult can't defend the crimes of their patron saint with facts, they invariably end up accusing his critics of "defending slavery." Apparently they believe this kind of sleazy behaviour is to be respected or even admired.

Lincoln was a great man. Lincoln was a god

I know you believe Lincoln was a god. The reality is that he was a despicable mass murdering tyrant. That's the god you worship. He is Baal.

Far from a God.Well deserving of his place on Mt. Rushmore as one of our greatest Presidents.

He belonged at the end of a rope.

 

[bripat9643]

He wasn't ever charged with anything, so why would he need a pardon?

You're disagreeing with Lee himself. D'Oh!

IDIOT!!!! Lee himself applied for a pardon. He was a confessed criminal and traitor:

One minor error: it reports that when Lee applied for a Presidential Pardon, he failed to include the Oath of Allegiance as required by law. A few years ago the oath turned up, misfiled, perhaps deliberately by someone who did not want to see Lee pardoned. Bob Huddleston

Pardon of Robert E. Lee

---​

On a spring day 140 years ago, Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee met face to face in the parlor of Wilmer McLean's house in Appomattox Court House, Virginia. On that historic occasion, April 9, 1865, the two generals formalized the surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, thus bringing an end to four years of fighting between North and South.

After agreeing upon terms of the surrender, the generals each selected three officers to oversee the surrender and parole of Lee's army. Later that day, Lee and six of his staff signed a document granting their parole.

On May 29, 1865, President Andrew Johnson issued a Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon to persons who had participated in the rebellion against the United States. There were fourteen excepted classes, though, and members of those classes had to make special application to the President.

Lee sent an application to Grant and wrote to President Johnson on June 13, 1865:

Being excluded from the provisions of amnesty & pardon contained in the proclamation of the 29th Ulto; I hereby apply for the benefits, & full restoration of all rights & privileges extended to those included in its terms. I graduated at the Mil. Academy at West Point in June 1829. Resigned from the U.S. Army April '61. Was a General in the Confederate Army, & included in the surrender of the Army of N. Va. 9 April '65.​

General Robert E. Lee s Parole and Citizenship


Confederate Pardons - Genealogy Today​

That proves nothing. No one in the confederacy was ever charged with anything, so why would they need a pardon? Here is another flagrant example of the federal government violating the Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

Who started the hostilities? Sure wasn't Lincoln and if the south had not who knows what might have happened.

The truth is the south did secede. Then they attacked the Federal government and war between the two countries was on. The south lost and the victorious north was very generous with their concurred land. If the numskull southerners would not have murdered Lincoln I am thinking it would have ended up even better for the south.

Lincoln deserved to be shot for the same reason that an arsonist deserves to die in a fire he started. Lincoln started a war of Americans killing Americans, so there's no injustice whatsoever when one of those Americans comes gunning for him. In fact, it's morally neutral, a natural vicissitude of war. He killed 600,000 Americans, hell yeah shoot him! Twice!!

The South shot first...firing on a Federal Installation. They deserved all they got and more....there should be a manditory holiday for Tecumseh Sherman.

Actually, the fort was in a state that had already seceded and had formed no treaty with the United States to have a base there. But more than that, the commanding officer was given the offer to surrender peacefully and didn't do so, so force was used. Once South Carolina became an independent state, it was their prerogative to do what they want with their own territory.

The fort was a federal fort as is all federal property in the U.S. even today. It did not belong to the "state" before they declared secession, it most certainly did not afterwards. The U.S. government was not surrender monkeys....but neither were they aggressors. That was the South. Doesn't surprise me....when you brutalize other people, you turn into bullies.

You're not going to win this argument. Fort Sumter was no longer in the United States. For this reason they were asked peacefully to surrender but refused to do so. You can argue until you're blue in the fact that South Carolina had no right to secede, but in fact the right of secession was established even before the Constitution was ratified, Virginia asserting it's right to do so as a condition of ratification. New York and Rhode Island did this too. So South Carolina was not part of the United States, and short of a treaty, the United States had no right to erect military bases in a foreign country. Logic defies you, as usual.

Fort Sumter was a federal installation...we have military bases around here and they are NOT state property, they are federal property. You obviously know nothing about federal property and military installations.

 

[bodecea]

Robert E. Lee was a great American.

He had to get a pardon. He was a criminal and a traitor

As was Jefferson Davis, who got caught trying to run away in a woman's dress.

Wrong again and as usual. Jefferson Davis when fleeing could not find his overcoat, so he threw his wife's raglan on his shoulders and ran. That's a far cry from cross dressing. Why do you have to distort the truth?

Riiiiiight...that's his story and he was sticking to it.

 

[hortysir]

Lincoln deserved to be shot for the same reason that an arsonist deserves to die in a fire he started. Lincoln started a war of Americans killing Americans, so there's no injustice whatsoever when one of those Americans comes gunning for him. In fact, it's morally neutral, a natural vicissitude of war. He killed 600,000 Americans, hell yeah shoot him! Twice!!

The South shot first...firing on a Federal Installation. They deserved all they got and more....there should be a manditory holiday for Tecumseh Sherman.

Actually, the fort was in a state that had already seceded and had formed no treaty with the United States to have a base there. But more than that, the commanding officer was given the offer to surrender peacefully and didn't do so, so force was used. Once South Carolina became an independent state, it was their prerogative to do what they want with their own territory.

The fort was a federal fort as is all federal property in the U.S. even today. It did not belong to the "state" before they declared secession, it most certainly did not afterwards. The U.S. government was not surrender monkeys....but neither were they aggressors. That was the South. Doesn't surprise me....when you brutalize other people, you turn into bullies.

You're not going to win this argument. Fort Sumter was no longer in the United States. For this reason they were asked peacefully to surrender but refused to do so. You can argue until you're blue in the fact that South Carolina had no right to secede, but in fact the right of secession was established even before the Constitution was ratified, Virginia asserting it's right to do so as a condition of ratification. New York and Rhode Island did this too. So South Carolina was not part of the United States, and short of a treaty, the United States had no right to erect military bases in a foreign country. Logic defies you, as usual.

Fort Sumter was a federal installation...we have military bases around here and they are NOT state property, they are federal property. You obviously know nothing about federal property and military installations.

Prior to Lincoln "federal property" didn't carry the weight it does now.
All the power belonged to the States

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln deserved to be shot for the same reason that an arsonist deserves to die in a fire he started. Lincoln started a war of Americans killing Americans, so there's no injustice whatsoever when one of those Americans comes gunning for him. In fact, it's morally neutral, a natural vicissitude of war. He killed 600,000 Americans, hell yeah shoot him! Twice!!

The South shot first...firing on a Federal Installation. They deserved all they got and more....there should be a manditory holiday for Tecumseh Sherman.

Actually, the fort was in a state that had already seceded and had formed no treaty with the United States to have a base there. But more than that, the commanding officer was given the offer to surrender peacefully and didn't do so, so force was used. Once South Carolina became an independent state, it was their prerogative to do what they want with their own territory.

The fort was a federal fort as is all federal property in the U.S. even today. It did not belong to the "state" before they declared secession, it most certainly did not afterwards. The U.S. government was not surrender monkeys....but neither were they aggressors. That was the South. Doesn't surprise me....when you brutalize other people, you turn into bullies.

You're not going to win this argument. Fort Sumter was no longer in the United States. For this reason they were asked peacefully to surrender but refused to do so. You can argue until you're blue in the fact that South Carolina had no right to secede, but in fact the right of secession was established even before the Constitution was ratified, Virginia asserting it's right to do so as a condition of ratification. New York and Rhode Island did this too. So South Carolina was not part of the United States, and short of a treaty, the United States had no right to erect military bases in a foreign country. Logic defies you, as usual.

Fort Sumter was a federal installation...we have military bases around here and they are NOT state property, they are federal property. You obviously know nothing about federal property and military installations.

This has been explained repeatedly, and you still don't get it. You're obviously too fucking stupid to bother arguing with.

 

[bodecea]

He wasn't ever charged with anything, so why would he need a pardon?

You're disagreeing with Lee himself. D'Oh!

IDIOT!!!! Lee himself applied for a pardon. He was a confessed criminal and traitor:

One minor error: it reports that when Lee applied for a Presidential Pardon, he failed to include the Oath of Allegiance as required by law. A few years ago the oath turned up, misfiled, perhaps deliberately by someone who did not want to see Lee pardoned. Bob Huddleston

Pardon of Robert E. Lee

---​

On a spring day 140 years ago, Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee met face to face in the parlor of Wilmer McLean's house in Appomattox Court House, Virginia. On that historic occasion, April 9, 1865, the two generals formalized the surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, thus bringing an end to four years of fighting between North and South.

After agreeing upon terms of the surrender, the generals each selected three officers to oversee the surrender and parole of Lee's army. Later that day, Lee and six of his staff signed a document granting their parole.

On May 29, 1865, President Andrew Johnson issued a Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon to persons who had participated in the rebellion against the United States. There were fourteen excepted classes, though, and members of those classes had to make special application to the President.

Lee sent an application to Grant and wrote to President Johnson on June 13, 1865:

Being excluded from the provisions of amnesty & pardon contained in the proclamation of the 29th Ulto; I hereby apply for the benefits, & full restoration of all rights & privileges extended to those included in its terms. I graduated at the Mil. Academy at West Point in June 1829. Resigned from the U.S. Army April '61. Was a General in the Confederate Army, & included in the surrender of the Army of N. Va. 9 April '65.​

General Robert E. Lee s Parole and Citizenship


Confederate Pardons - Genealogy Today​

That proves nothing. No one in the confederacy was ever charged with anything, so why would they need a pardon? Here is another flagrant example of the federal government violating the Constitution.

Oh? You sure about that?

 

[bodecea]

The South shot first...firing on a Federal Installation. They deserved all they got and more....there should be a manditory holiday for Tecumseh Sherman.

Actually, the fort was in a state that had already seceded and had formed no treaty with the United States to have a base there. But more than that, the commanding officer was given the offer to surrender peacefully and didn't do so, so force was used. Once South Carolina became an independent state, it was their prerogative to do what they want with their own territory.

The fort was a federal fort as is all federal property in the U.S. even today. It did not belong to the "state" before they declared secession, it most certainly did not afterwards. The U.S. government was not surrender monkeys....but neither were they aggressors. That was the South. Doesn't surprise me....when you brutalize other people, you turn into bullies.

You're not going to win this argument. Fort Sumter was no longer in the United States. For this reason they were asked peacefully to surrender but refused to do so. You can argue until you're blue in the fact that South Carolina had no right to secede, but in fact the right of secession was established even before the Constitution was ratified, Virginia asserting it's right to do so as a condition of ratification. New York and Rhode Island did this too. So South Carolina was not part of the United States, and short of a treaty, the United States had no right to erect military bases in a foreign country. Logic defies you, as usual.

Fort Sumter was a federal installation...we have military bases around here and they are NOT state property, they are federal property. You obviously know nothing about federal property and military installations.

Prior to Lincoln "federal property" didn't carry the weight it does now.
All the power belonged to the States

Oh? Care to prove that?

 

[bripat9643]

The South shot first...firing on a Federal Installation. They deserved all they got and more....there should be a manditory holiday for Tecumseh Sherman.

Actually, the fort was in a state that had already seceded and had formed no treaty with the United States to have a base there. But more than that, the commanding officer was given the offer to surrender peacefully and didn't do so, so force was used. Once South Carolina became an independent state, it was their prerogative to do what they want with their own territory.

The fort was a federal fort as is all federal property in the U.S. even today. It did not belong to the "state" before they declared secession, it most certainly did not afterwards. The U.S. government was not surrender monkeys....but neither were they aggressors. That was the South. Doesn't surprise me....when you brutalize other people, you turn into bullies.

You're not going to win this argument. Fort Sumter was no longer in the United States. For this reason they were asked peacefully to surrender but refused to do so. You can argue until you're blue in the fact that South Carolina had no right to secede, but in fact the right of secession was established even before the Constitution was ratified, Virginia asserting it's right to do so as a condition of ratification. New York and Rhode Island did this too. So South Carolina was not part of the United States, and short of a treaty, the United States had no right to erect military bases in a foreign country. Logic defies you, as usual.

Fort Sumter was a federal installation...we have military bases around here and they are NOT state property, they are federal property. You obviously know nothing about federal property and military installations.

Prior to Lincoln "federal property" didn't carry the weight it does now.
All the power belonged to the States

It wouldn't matter because "federal property" in another country is still the territory of that country and subject to its laws. After it seceded SC was a foreign country.