wbarmy on Fort Sumter:
"Are you saying Lincoln should have abandoned Federal property to keep the Peace?" DiogenesLamp: "Perhaps not all is according to what you have been led to believe?
Read the article if you will."
I've read several books on this subject, and here is the important fact: Lincoln was willing to give up Fort Sumter, but he wanted something of value in return, and that was a pledge by Virginia not to secede -- a fort for a state was a good trade in Lincoln's mind.
Of course, Virginians would not pledge to remain in the Union, because, according to their Ratification of the US Constitution statement, they needed actual civil war to justify their own declaration of secession.
A Confederate assault on Fort Sumter would supply Virginians with the excuse they needed, so they were in no-way willing to promise loyalty to the Union in exchange for Lincoln's release of Fort Sumter.
I've read several books on this subject, and here is the important fact: Lincoln was willing to give up Fort Sumter, but he wanted something of value in return, and that was a pledge by Virginia not to secede -- a fort for a state was a good trade in Lincoln's mind. A Fort would indeed be a very good trade for a state, especially a state as large and important as Virginia. But see, this once more illustrates a point. As the old joke goes, "We've already determined what kind of girl you are, now we are just negotiating over price."
If Lincoln was going to give up Ft. Sumter and let the rest of the South secede in exchange for Virginia remaining, then how does that square with the assertion that it was of absolute unquestionable principle and importance that states didn't have a right to leave the Union?
How can you fight such a bloody war on a principle which you were willing to negotiate away?