I’ve been thinking about this comment.
I think what the neo-Confeds see here is essentially what modern liberals see when they look at any conflict or disagreement between their good guys (minorities, women, Muslims, gays, 3rd world countries, radicals, revolutionaries, etc.) and their bad guys (white people, Americans, American conservatives, counter-revolutionaries, etc.).
In this worldview the bad guys are always responsible for anything at all negative that happens, since any apparently negative actions by the good guys are entirely a reaction to provocation by the bad guys.
IMO this infantilizes their good guys, since they lose all moral responsibility and become merely objects that react when subjected to a stimulus. Only the bad guys have true volition.
In actual fact, IMO, both sides have moral responsibility for their own actions, and the actual course of events is a complicated mixture of free decisions and reactions to the other side by both parties. But that’s too complex for those who insist on believing in 100% innocent good guys and 100% guilty bad guys.
Looking back at Sumter, where the neos firmly believe Lincoln “forced” Davis into firing the first shot.
Anderson had already informed his opponents that he would be forced to surrender for lack of provisions in just a few days (three if I remember correctly). Which means a peaceful resolution is at hand if the CSA was just willing to wait a little.
The ships coming to provision and possibly reinforce the Fort could have been driven off by gunfire without it necessarily starting a war, as had earlier attempts. For some reason, shooting at a ship didn’t carry the same connotations at the time as firing on a fort.
To my mind this means that Davis gambled that the outbreak of war, with the CSA firing the first shot, would cause the Upper South and Border states to climb down off the fence on his side.
Which to a considerable extent happened. It is very clear from contemporary accounts that Virginians and other Upper South peoples made their choice to secede as soon as they heard of the fighting at Sumter. Massive spontaneous demonstrations ensued.
This was followed several days later by Lincoln’s call for troops, which was then used as a convenient justification for secession by these states. But it’s pretty clear they made their decision before he sent out the call.
IOW, I think it’s clear the CSA made a conscious decision to precipitate war as a way of forcing the remaining slave states into a decision.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
The neo-confederates (or whatever they're calling themselves now) are playing the victim card. If you look at a lot of their books, as simplistic as the portrayal of the villain Lincoln is, his opponents are even less complicated and less real.
They're cardboard cutouts who have no will or motivations of their own -- just extras in the Lincoln drama. This is actually quite insulting to them, and in a way it's quite a back-handed tribute to Lincoln.
If Jefferson Davis had won his war and established his country, he'd be respected -- or vilified -- as a nation-builder or state-builder, as a national hero or as a Machiavellian monster. But since he lost, he can just become a passive victim. For some people it's easier to just throw out all the complexities and ambiguities.