Should all Land the Federal Government Owns be given it by States?

   I change my mind on the federal government's right to own and direct our wilderness and such lands.
   Then, I change it back. Then, I go into a mode of not being sure what opinion to hold.
   I'm reading along in the Constitution, when I come to the part where it says the federal government has authority to run places it has purchased from the states to use as military installations.
   It says those places purchased by the federal government shall be sold with the consent of the state legislatures.
  Well -- just as it has occurred to millions before me -- it occurs to me that if the federal government can only have land for military sites if the states grants over those properties, by extension, if it owns other federal lands, it should only do so if the states grant those lands over.
   And, many take what the Constitution says a step further. They say it means that other than such properties outlined in the Constitution, the federal government is to own no property at all.
   I consider on it. At the time the Constitution was written, there was no federal government. It follows, then, that the federal government owned not a single piece of property. If it were to obtain land, it would have to obtain it from the states.
   So, what the Constitution says is but an acknowledgment that the federal government would have to acquire land if it were to have land. It did not prohibit the federal government from obtaining open land as the nation grew westward.
   Or is that what the Constitution is saying? Should all land the federal government owns be granted it only if state legislatures appropriate such properties to the federal government?
   I will think on it some more.