If the USA had just shot the Southern attackers for treason,

[Syriusly]

And one of those forts was filled full of American troops when the rebel forces started firing upon it.

The OP is full of BS, but let us not forget- Federal troops didn't fire first.

And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..

Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.

Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.

Lincoln could have abandoned Sumter and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

The South could have not attempted to secede- and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

But why fight a war to stop them? Lincoln's reasons are obvious: He didn't want the protectionist U.S. to compete with a free trade Confederacy. But what reasons could anybody alive today possibly have? Certainly most people in the Union were in fact happy to see the south leave, especially the abolitionists who knew that the fugitive slave clause was now even less enforceable. It wasn't until Lincoln orchestrated Fort Sumter that he was able to change public opinion. So, again, who cares if the south secedes?

You claimed that Lincoln could have prevented the war- and I pointed out that the South could have done the same thing.

If you want to know Lincoln's reasons- read some of his biographies- he was pretty vocal about what his priorities and reasons were, and it had nothing to do with 'protectionist' policies.

 

[Ernie S.]

No, they didn't. With the exception of a few forts, the US government owned nothing in the Confederacy.

And one of those forts was filled full of American troops when the rebel forces started firing upon it.

The OP is full of BS, but let us not forget- Federal troops didn't fire first.

And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..

Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.

Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.

Yes, not resupplying the forts would have sent the message that Lincoln was interested in diplomacy, but he wasn't. He wanted to bring the south to heel and force them to pay their tribute to his government. .

Lincoln intended to keep the Union intact- it had nothing to do with 'paying tribute'.

The South provoked the War- they made the decision to attempt to leave the Union- and they fired the first shots of the war.

Why was it that the South couldn't choose to leave the Union?
They chose to join in 1776, didn't they?

 

[Syriusly]

And one of those forts was filled full of American troops when the rebel forces started firing upon it.

The OP is full of BS, but let us not forget- Federal troops didn't fire first.

And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..

Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.

Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.

Yes, not resupplying the forts would have sent the message that Lincoln was interested in diplomacy, but he wasn't. He wanted to bring the south to heel and force them to pay their tribute to his government. .

Lincoln intended to keep the Union intact- it had nothing to do with 'paying tribute'.

The South provoked the War- they made the decision to attempt to leave the Union- and they fired the first shots of the war.

Lincoln's own words from his first Inaugural Address:

"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

So yes, he intended to keep the Union intact--because he wanted the south to continue paying their taxes and tariffs, in other words, their tribute, to the federal government.

LOL- that is the only thing you got out of his entire address on the issue?

Lincoln spoke at length about why the separation of the Union was wrong:

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. 15

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. 16


I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

And his closing was very prophetic:

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it." 34


I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.



And the South chose to fire the first shots of the civil war.

 

[Syriusly]

And one of those forts was filled full of American troops when the rebel forces started firing upon it.

The OP is full of BS, but let us not forget- Federal troops didn't fire first.

And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..

Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.

Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.

Yes, not resupplying the forts would have sent the message that Lincoln was interested in diplomacy, but he wasn't. He wanted to bring the south to heel and force them to pay their tribute to his government. .

Lincoln intended to keep the Union intact- it had nothing to do with 'paying tribute'.

The South provoked the War- they made the decision to attempt to leave the Union- and they fired the first shots of the war.

Why was it that the South couldn't choose to leave the Union?
They chose to join in 1776, didn't they?

Lincoln:

It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. 11

I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. 12

Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? 13

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union." 14

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. 15

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. 16

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

 

[Anathema]

And the South chose to fire the first shots of the civil war.

And every TRUE AMERICAN should be loading their rifles to do so AGAIN, whether they be Northerner or Southerner; resident of the East Coast, West Coast or Midwest.

 

[Ernie S.]

And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..

Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.

Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.

Yes, not resupplying the forts would have sent the message that Lincoln was interested in diplomacy, but he wasn't. He wanted to bring the south to heel and force them to pay their tribute to his government. .

Lincoln intended to keep the Union intact- it had nothing to do with 'paying tribute'.

The South provoked the War- they made the decision to attempt to leave the Union- and they fired the first shots of the war.

Why was it that the South couldn't choose to leave the Union?
They chose to join in 1776, didn't they?

Lincoln:

It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. 11

I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. 12

Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? 13

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union." 14

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. 15

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. 16

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

Lincoln's opinion and $3.50 will get you a cup of coffee.

If my wife wants a divorce, do I have the right to beat her half to death and force her to stay?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..

Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.

Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.

Lincoln could have abandoned Sumter and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

The South could have not attempted to secede- and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

But why fight a war to stop them? Lincoln's reasons are obvious: He didn't want the protectionist U.S. to compete with a free trade Confederacy. But what reasons could anybody alive today possibly have? Certainly most people in the Union were in fact happy to see the south leave, especially the abolitionists who knew that the fugitive slave clause was now even less enforceable. It wasn't until Lincoln orchestrated Fort Sumter that he was able to change public opinion. So, again, who cares if the south secedes?

How did Lincoln orchestrate Ft. Sumter when he wasn't even president when the first shots of the war were fired by the South OVER Ft. Sumter?

Lincoln was President in April, when the shots that actually started the war happened. The war obviously did not start in January when Buchanan was still in office. Dishonestly attributing what I said to the obvious wrong date doesn't make you clever.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..

Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.

Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.

Lincoln could have abandoned Sumter and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

The South could have not attempted to secede- and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

But why fight a war to stop them? Lincoln's reasons are obvious: He didn't want the protectionist U.S. to compete with a free trade Confederacy. But what reasons could anybody alive today possibly have? Certainly most people in the Union were in fact happy to see the south leave, especially the abolitionists who knew that the fugitive slave clause was now even less enforceable. It wasn't until Lincoln orchestrated Fort Sumter that he was able to change public opinion. So, again, who cares if the south secedes?

You claimed that Lincoln could have prevented the war- and I pointed out that the South could have done the same thing.

If you want to know Lincoln's reasons- read some of his biographies- he was pretty vocal about what his priorities and reasons were, and it had nothing to do with 'protectionist' policies.

Yes, Lincoln wanted to save the Union, because he wanted the south to adopt his protectionist policies. Again, in Lincoln's own words from his first Inaugural Address:

"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

So yes, in his own words Lincoln claims that there will be "bloodshed" and "violence" to "collect the duties and imposts," meaning tariffs.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..

Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.

Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.

Yes, not resupplying the forts would have sent the message that Lincoln was interested in diplomacy, but he wasn't. He wanted to bring the south to heel and force them to pay their tribute to his government. .

Lincoln intended to keep the Union intact- it had nothing to do with 'paying tribute'.

The South provoked the War- they made the decision to attempt to leave the Union- and they fired the first shots of the war.

Lincoln's own words from his first Inaugural Address:

"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

So yes, he intended to keep the Union intact--because he wanted the south to continue paying their taxes and tariffs, in other words, their tribute, to the federal government.

LOL- that is the only thing you got out of his entire address on the issue?

Lincoln spoke at length about why the separation of the Union was wrong:

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. 15

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. 16


I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

And his closing was very prophetic:

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it." 34


I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.



And the South chose to fire the first shots of the civil war.

Yes, I quoted the relevant part. Yes, he made up nonsense about how the Union is perpetual and how it somehow predated its own establishment, but his reasoning for why he wanted to save the Union was clear. To collect his tariff. The tariff was, of course, one of the central platforms of his campaign.

 

[Agit8r]

We should come to a compromise. Say that any of the original 13 Colonies may secede (in the form of their present government borders) whereas if any state added subsequently wants to no longer be a US State, they may only revert back to territorial status. Problem solved.

 

[Ravi]

Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.

Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.

Lincoln could have abandoned Sumter and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

The South could have not attempted to secede- and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

But why fight a war to stop them? Lincoln's reasons are obvious: He didn't want the protectionist U.S. to compete with a free trade Confederacy. But what reasons could anybody alive today possibly have? Certainly most people in the Union were in fact happy to see the south leave, especially the abolitionists who knew that the fugitive slave clause was now even less enforceable. It wasn't until Lincoln orchestrated Fort Sumter that he was able to change public opinion. So, again, who cares if the south secedes?

How did Lincoln orchestrate Ft. Sumter when he wasn't even president when the first shots of the war were fired by the South OVER Ft. Sumter?

Lincoln was President in April, when the shots that actually started the war happened. The war obviously did not start in January when Buchanan was still in office. Dishonestly attributing what I said to the obvious wrong date doesn't make you clever.

Wrong.

Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored. Union attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war, fired by cadets from the Citadel, prevented the steamer Star of the West, hired to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We should come to a compromise. Say that any of the original 13 Colonies may secede (in the form of their present government borders) whereas if any state added subsequently wants to no longer be a US State, they may only revert back to territorial status. Problem solved.

No state can have more "rights," for lack of a better term, than another.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Lincoln could have abandoned Sumter and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

The South could have not attempted to secede- and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

But why fight a war to stop them? Lincoln's reasons are obvious: He didn't want the protectionist U.S. to compete with a free trade Confederacy. But what reasons could anybody alive today possibly have? Certainly most people in the Union were in fact happy to see the south leave, especially the abolitionists who knew that the fugitive slave clause was now even less enforceable. It wasn't until Lincoln orchestrated Fort Sumter that he was able to change public opinion. So, again, who cares if the south secedes?

How did Lincoln orchestrate Ft. Sumter when he wasn't even president when the first shots of the war were fired by the South OVER Ft. Sumter?

Lincoln was President in April, when the shots that actually started the war happened. The war obviously did not start in January when Buchanan was still in office. Dishonestly attributing what I said to the obvious wrong date doesn't make you clever.

Wrong.

Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored. Union attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war, fired by cadets from the Citadel, prevented the steamer Star of the West, hired to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task.

Except that nobody on Earth actually argues that that was the start of the war, you know, because the war didn't start until after the April firing on Fort Sumter when Lincoln initiated the blockade on Southern ports.

 

[gipper]

The myths instilled in Americans about Lincoln's war, are enormous. The right of secession and the reasons for the war, top the list.

As Thomas DiLorenzo recently documented, secession is a global phenomenon that isn't going away:
"There are 32 secessionist movements in Africa; 114 secessionist movements in Europe; 20 secessionist movements in North America; 83 secessionist movements in Asia; 11 secessionist movements in South America; and 26 secessionist movements in Oceania. Neo-Confederates are everywhere!"

Funny...the US gov backs secessionist movements around the world today, but bring up secession in a discussion on Lincoln's war and you will be immediately attacked as a traitor, liar, and neo-confederate.

The Southern states were not traitorous when they seceded; they had every right to do so. The only traitor was Lincoln, who declared war without congressional approval and violated a hundred other constitutional provisions and laws of human decency in his battle to "preserve the Union". He may have reclaimed the Southern states as captured provinces, but he certainly didn't preserve our republic. What we had was a voluntary association of independent states united under the contract of the Constitution. Lincoln's war of aggression most assuredly killed that system of government for all the states, replacing it with the federal leviathan that knows no boundaries and gives no thought to the consent of the governed. He won the war and we still suffer the losses.
NathanKleffman.com Secession Slavery and the Civil War Causation Correlation or Mass Confusion

 

[Ravi]

The South could have not attempted to secede- and saved us 4 years of Civil War.

But why fight a war to stop them? Lincoln's reasons are obvious: He didn't want the protectionist U.S. to compete with a free trade Confederacy. But what reasons could anybody alive today possibly have? Certainly most people in the Union were in fact happy to see the south leave, especially the abolitionists who knew that the fugitive slave clause was now even less enforceable. It wasn't until Lincoln orchestrated Fort Sumter that he was able to change public opinion. So, again, who cares if the south secedes?

How did Lincoln orchestrate Ft. Sumter when he wasn't even president when the first shots of the war were fired by the South OVER Ft. Sumter?

Lincoln was President in April, when the shots that actually started the war happened. The war obviously did not start in January when Buchanan was still in office. Dishonestly attributing what I said to the obvious wrong date doesn't make you clever.

Wrong.

Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored. Union attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war, fired by cadets from the Citadel, prevented the steamer Star of the West, hired to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task.

Except that nobody on Earth actually argues that that was the start of the war, you know, because the war didn't start until after the April firing on Fort Sumter when Lincoln initiated the blockade on Southern ports.

You claimed Lincoln orchestrated Ft. Sumter. Clearly, he did not. Clearly, the Confederates had already fired on Ft. Sumter before Lincoln was president.

 

[gipper]

But why fight a war to stop them? Lincoln's reasons are obvious: He didn't want the protectionist U.S. to compete with a free trade Confederacy. But what reasons could anybody alive today possibly have? Certainly most people in the Union were in fact happy to see the south leave, especially the abolitionists who knew that the fugitive slave clause was now even less enforceable. It wasn't until Lincoln orchestrated Fort Sumter that he was able to change public opinion. So, again, who cares if the south secedes?

How did Lincoln orchestrate Ft. Sumter when he wasn't even president when the first shots of the war were fired by the South OVER Ft. Sumter?

Lincoln was President in April, when the shots that actually started the war happened. The war obviously did not start in January when Buchanan was still in office. Dishonestly attributing what I said to the obvious wrong date doesn't make you clever.

Wrong.

Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored. Union attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war, fired by cadets from the Citadel, prevented the steamer Star of the West, hired to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task.

Except that nobody on Earth actually argues that that was the start of the war, you know, because the war didn't start until after the April firing on Fort Sumter when Lincoln initiated the blockade on Southern ports.

You claimed Lincoln orchestrated Ft. Sumter. Clearly, he did not. Clearly, the Confederates had already fired on Ft. Sumter before Lincoln was president.

Anyone who has bothered to study the event, knows Lincoln purposely provoked the attack on Ft. Sumter for nefarious reasons. Those reasons included changing public opinion in the North to go to war and invade the South.

All other federal installations in the South were relinquished without a fight. One would think you might wonder why Ft Sumter held out. Did you know that not one person died in S. Carolina's bombing of Ft Sumter?

 

[Ravi]

How did Lincoln orchestrate Ft. Sumter when he wasn't even president when the first shots of the war were fired by the South OVER Ft. Sumter?

Lincoln was President in April, when the shots that actually started the war happened. The war obviously did not start in January when Buchanan was still in office. Dishonestly attributing what I said to the obvious wrong date doesn't make you clever.

Wrong.

Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored. Union attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war, fired by cadets from the Citadel, prevented the steamer Star of the West, hired to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task.

Except that nobody on Earth actually argues that that was the start of the war, you know, because the war didn't start until after the April firing on Fort Sumter when Lincoln initiated the blockade on Southern ports.

You claimed Lincoln orchestrated Ft. Sumter. Clearly, he did not. Clearly, the Confederates had already fired on Ft. Sumter before Lincoln was president.

Anyone who has bothered to study the event, knows Lincoln purposely provoked the attack on Ft. Sumter for nefarious reasons. Those reasons included changing public opinion in the North to go to war and invade the South.

All other federal installations in the South were relinquished without a fight. One would think you might wonder why Ft Sumter held out. Did you know that not one person died in S. Carolina's bombing of Ft Sumter?

An attack on federal property is an attack on federal property. This isn't rocket science.

 

[gipper]

Lincoln was President in April, when the shots that actually started the war happened. The war obviously did not start in January when Buchanan was still in office. Dishonestly attributing what I said to the obvious wrong date doesn't make you clever.

Wrong.

Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored. Union attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war, fired by cadets from the Citadel, prevented the steamer Star of the West, hired to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task.

Except that nobody on Earth actually argues that that was the start of the war, you know, because the war didn't start until after the April firing on Fort Sumter when Lincoln initiated the blockade on Southern ports.

You claimed Lincoln orchestrated Ft. Sumter. Clearly, he did not. Clearly, the Confederates had already fired on Ft. Sumter before Lincoln was president.

Anyone who has bothered to study the event, knows Lincoln purposely provoked the attack on Ft. Sumter for nefarious reasons. Those reasons included changing public opinion in the North to go to war and invade the South.

All other federal installations in the South were relinquished without a fight. One would think you might wonder why Ft Sumter held out. Did you know that not one person died in S. Carolina's bombing of Ft Sumter?

An attack on federal property is an attack on federal property. This isn't rocket science.

Please stop the misdirection. Can we debate honestly?

No one disputes S. Carolina fired on Ft Sumter. Why the strawman argument?

It is clear Lincoln set up events at Ft Sumter. Does this mean anything to you?

Is it your belief that since S. Carolina militia fired on Ft Sumter, Lincoln was justified in invading the entire Confederacy causing the deaths of 800k Americans and destruction of half the nation?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How do you shoot the Confederates who orchestrated the secession without going to war? It doesn't seem likely that they'd simply turn themselves in or let Union soldiers come hang them in their own states.

Execute them on the spot for attacking US interests.

Then we wouldn't have a Democrat Party

 

[Syriusly]

How did Lincoln orchestrate Ft. Sumter when he wasn't even president when the first shots of the war were fired by the South OVER Ft. Sumter?

Lincoln was President in April, when the shots that actually started the war happened. The war obviously did not start in January when Buchanan was still in office. Dishonestly attributing what I said to the obvious wrong date doesn't make you clever.

Wrong.

Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored. Union attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war, fired by cadets from the Citadel, prevented the steamer Star of the West, hired to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task.

Except that nobody on Earth actually argues that that was the start of the war, you know, because the war didn't start until after the April firing on Fort Sumter when Lincoln initiated the blockade on Southern ports.

You claimed Lincoln orchestrated Ft. Sumter. Clearly, he did not. Clearly, the Confederates had already fired on Ft. Sumter before Lincoln was president.

Anyone who has bothered to study the event, knows Lincoln purposely provoked the attack on Ft. Sumter for nefarious reasons. Those reasons included changing public opinion in the North to go to war and invade the South.

All other federal installations in the South were relinquished without a fight. One would think you might wonder why Ft Sumter held out. Did you know that not one person died in S. Carolina's bombing of Ft Sumter?

Of course- South Carolina could have just you know- not fired on Fort Sumter.......

Not as if Lincoln made them command 'fire'......South Carolina made the conscious choice to proceed to war.

Firing the first shots of the Civil War.