You said: "It would seem you've ignored the little issue of the firing on Ft. Sumter. That's what initiated the war, beyond the secession of the southern states, that is."
The idea that a Confederate garrison firing on Ft. Sumter initiating the war is pure fiction that presents well to the uninformed, and gives the believable, although incorrect, excuse for the Lincoln war initiation.
That is media hype from 1861 to inflame northern draftees, and you still fall for it 150 years later.
Who fired in Charleston was not the determinant of war, as was true of many other events of 1860-1861..
War did not follow after South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860.
War did not follow after Major Anderson removed his troops from Ft. Moultrie to Ft. Sumter, and turned UNION guns on the city.
War did not follow after the Union garrison fired on Florida state troops in Barrancas Barracks in Pensacola Bay, late at night on the eighth of January (the day before the Star of the West would be fired on at Charleston).
War did not follow the next day when the Star of the West, rented by the Federal government to carry troops into Charleston Harbor for purposes of conflict, was fired upon and driven off the harbor.
War did not follow during the next three months while the seceded states reclaimed their property.
There are all sorts of examples throughout history of skirmishes and fire fights that did not bring all out war.
Specifically, in Charleston the Confederate garrison did not have the power to bring war. It had the power to defend the harbor, which is what it did.
War did not follow after the Confederate garrison repelled the Union fleet attempting to enter the harbor by reducing Ft. Sumter.
It was only after Lincoln called up the state militias, ordered the blockade of Southern ports, and prepared to send Union troops into Virginia that war began. The United States Supreme Court formally determined this event as the beginning of the war.
Um, what were the southern states doing during this same time, as far as raising militias for the confederacy?
Are you insinuating that that was a cause for Lincoln to initiate the invasions of Sumter and Pensacola, call up troops, and declare a blockade? That is truly farfetched.
BWAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAA!
It was not their property to "reclaim".
Are you insinuating that that was a cause for Lincoln to initiate the invasions of Sumter and Pensacola, call up troops, and declare a blockade?
There was no "invasion" of Sumter and Pensacola - why would they need to invade properties that belonged to them?
That is truly farfetched(sic).
Many of your notion are...