Chuck,

Everyone here knows I have no use of opinions, I want sourced facts. That being said, please go back to Civil War Talk and ask those fellows for a transcription of the (new) deed filed in 1841. I have searched until I am cross eyed and cannot find such a deed. I did find this interesting little tidbit that seems to cover what you are saying. This website leads me to believe the deed, with conditions, as David and I have posted was not properly filed until 1841.

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/hh/12/hh12a.htm

“It was not until January 1841 that work was resumed on the site of Fort Sumter. Laval's claim was invalidated by the State attorney general under act of the South Carolina Legislature, December 20, 1837. But the harbor issue remained and was complicated still further by a memorial presented to the legislature by James C. Holmes, Charleston lawyer, on that same date. Not before November 22, 1841, was the Federal Government's title to 125 acres of harbor "land" recorded in the office of the Secretary of State of South Carolina.”

You posted-- “In December of 1860, While the outer fort was complete, only about 80 % of the interior work and the mounting of guns had been completed. Of the 135 guns planned for the gun rooms and the open parapet, only 15 had been mounted.” Our point exactly. The agreement did not make any exceptions for lack of funds, lack of skilled workers, or the weather.

You posted-- "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,”

You tend to completely ignore this passage and hang your hat on one portion of the document to make your argument.
“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.”

David Upton both took the time to explain the language to you. I believe that David has read enough period documents to understand the intended meaning.

You posted--- “In short, South Carolina gave up all of their rights and claims to the site (which was under water at low tide anyway) in their desire to have the US government build/maintain a fort there. They did the same with their rights to property for Castle Pinckney, Fort Moultrie, and the Charleston Arsenal in order to get the Federal government to own them.
Giving up All their Claims also means that any prior conditions are now "voided", unless included in the Final Deed, which as can be seen above, excluded any and all claims."

True the US could use the land as they wished PROVIDING the conditions were met, and by your own post you acknowledge they were not. Where does it say they gave up all their prior conditions, the passage I posted clearly disputes your claim.

You posted --- “Also, once they gave up all rights, the Federal Government could have workmen or troops, on site at their pleasure, not at the pleasure of the state the Federal Property occupied.”

Not so. The agreement with Buchannan says no troops will occupy Fort Sumter. Anderson clearly went against this agreement when he moved without orders from Moultrie to Sumter.