Replies

But despite your repeated claims, there was no higher principle than slavery involved -- none.

Stop being a fool. Lincoln and the North cynically used the slavery ploy to assert a post hoc justification for the bloodshed they created by fighting against the independence of the Southern states.

It was the only massageable bit of propaganda they had to work with to justify putting down Independence.

You can't seem to grasp the fact that they were going to sell you down the river for the first year and a half.

No, the higher principle involved is whether or not the Union was voluntary or coercive. We found out it is coercive, like a Mafia family.

What provoked Civil War was dozens of Confederate seizures of major Federal properties -- forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc. What started Civil War was the Confederate military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter, April 12, 1861. What confirmed Civil War was the Confederates' formal declaration of war against the United States on May 6, 1861. What made Civil War a "total war" was the Confederates' military aid to pro-Confederates fighting in Union states.

Bullsh*t. If that were true, Lincoln would not have offered Ft. Sumter in exchange for Virginia remaining in the Union. He would not have gone "all is forgiven, if Virginia doesn't secede." As the old joke goes, "We've already learned what kind of a girl you are, now we are just haggling over the price. "

No, the decision to go to war was entirely in Lincoln's hands, and he chose to do so.

And he did it with an "Executive order."

DiogenesLamp: "No, the higher principle involved is whether or not the Union was voluntary or coercive.
We found out it is coercive, like a Mafia family."

No, if any, the higher principle was whether the United States was constitutional or lawless.
The issue, if any, was whether a self-proclaimed secessionist power could militarily seize United States property assault the US Army AND formally declare war on the United States, without suffering just consequences.
Turned out, the answer was "no".

So tell us why you can't grasp such simple facts.

DiogenesLamp: "Bullsh*t.
If that were true, Lincoln would not have offered Ft. Sumter in exchange for Virginia remaining in the Union.
He would not have gone 'all is forgiven, if Virginia doesn't secede.'
As the old joke goes, 'We've already learned what kind of a girl you are, now we are just haggling over the price.'
No, the decision to go to war was entirely in Lincoln's hands, and he chose to do so."

Pure rubbish.
Lincoln's choices in April 1861 were three, none of which necessarily meant war:

Lincoln could surrender Fort Sumter, as demanded by Confederates, under threat of military assault.
President Buchanan had previously refused to surrender.
Lincoln could attempt to "trade" Fort Sumter for something of value, such as Virginia's promise to remain in the Union.
Lincoln could, as President Buchanan had previously, attempt to resupply-reinforce Fort Sumter.

Like Buchanan, Lincoln refused to simply surrender Fort Sumter.
Instead, he offered to trade, "a fort for a state", Virginia.
These negotiations went on for weeks, but in the end failed.
Virginia's secession convention would not promise to adjourn after voting to remain in the Union.

So Lincoln simply attempted, as Buchanan had, to resupply Fort Sumter.
The decision to use Lincoln's resupply mission as their excuse for starting Civil War against the United States was strictly in the hands of Confederate President Davis.

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is a good analogy: Commie Cubans claim the US has no right to be there and demand our withdrawal.
We dispute their claims and continue to resupply or reinforce Guantanamo at will.
If Cubans launch a military assault on US forces at Guantanamo, then Cubans have started war, not the USA.

So tell us why you can't grasp such simple facts.