Yes that is how I understand the position which I have heard all my life. I never thought that it mattered who fired the first shot or even where or when the shooting started. "Well, HE started it!" is playground talk, and does not bear on either side's moral argument. At least I would not be interested in anyone's moral position if it hinged on such a mere fact.
I can understand why the fighting children on the playground will say that to the teachers who come to break it up, but I don't think there would be any valuable instruction in their explanations. "But he was about to attack ME!!" I like the playground analogy in discussion of the causes of the war for various reasons but the "Who started it?" question does not in my humble opinion give virtue to either side's moral argument so I will continue ignore it.
I enjoy these posts by you. You have a good mind and you seem to have more actual historical knowledge about the subject than any Yankee I ever interacted with. My wife is from East Longmeadow, Mass. They will say, "You people are still fighting the war down there." We will reply, "What? You mean it's OVER???" Always gets a laugh.
I would love to spend an afternoon with you over this. And would you ping me next time all this comes up? I am out on your final with many thanks!
**BDParrish comments in italics
I hesitate calling on DiogenesLamp, but it's his arguments I'm attempting to rehearse.
The explanation is: $200 million in 1860 represented roughly the value on Deep South cotton exports, earnings from which paid for imports on which Federal tariff revenues depended.
But Lost Causers claim that much or most of the $200 million was being siphoned off by "New York power brokers" who used it to buy influence in the Washington D.C. Deep State, influence inimical to Southern interests.
That's what forced secession in late 1860 and it's also why the big devil Lincoln invaded the South, killed 700,000 soldiers plus millions of civilians, destroying $billions in Southern property assets, all to protect the $200 million "money flow from Europe."
It's the reason Lincoln was not just our worst Democrat president, he was also one of the worst human beings ever, equivalent to some of our 20th century monsters.
Do you suppose I mistakenly called Lincoln a "Democrat" president?
No, no mistake by me -- that is imho the focus and key point in all Lost Causer propaganda -- to turn 1860 Northern Republicans into today's Liberal Progressive Democrats and make 1861 secessionists into conservative Republicans.
What do you think, DiogenesLamp, did I state your views accurately?
BDParrish: "I never thought that it mattered who fired the first shot or even where or when the shooting started.
"Well, HE started it!" is playground talk, and does not bear on either side's moral argument."
Oh but it's critical to assigning blame to Lincoln for millions of deaths and $billions in treasure lost due to the Civil War.
I mean, if Lincoln was not to blame, then who was, Grant, no must be that little demon Sherman, it's all his fault, right?
No blame must ever besmirch such noble conservative Republicans as, say Jefferson Davis or Alexander Stephens or William Lowndes Yancey, for examples.
Out of time for now, must run, back later...
Years ago when I was teaching myself to think logically I ran across a list of examples of fallacy arguments. I realized these examples explained the fallacy in thinking behind various common arguments, and I embraced the idea that these examples constituted bad reasoning.
Years later I ran across the experiments conducted on Chimpanzees with Grapes and Cucumbers. I also ran across a book called "The Lucifer Principle" which made me aware of the irrationality of people.
I realized that Fallacy arguments are in fact the best arguments for convincing the general population of something, because most people do not make decisions based on reason or rationality, they make their decisions based on emotion and feelings. The heart really does lead the head for most people.
Therefore, the "You Started it!" argument may seem childish and silly to someone who is a thinking person, but to the vast majority of people who are susceptible to manipulation, it is the fulcrum by which they can be moved to action.
Lincoln was a master at manipulating the gullible. His efforts to present the South as having "started it!" was a master stroke of public manipulation, and without it, he could not possibly have convinced states to send men to conquer other states.
Lincoln knew the minds of people, and he knew how to pull the right emotional strings to get them to do what he wanted. This is also what made him a good lawyer.
I would love to spend an afternoon with you over this.
BroJoeK is the sort of fellow, that if you ask him for the time, he will give you long and tedious instructions on building a clock, and his instructions will contain a great deal of information which is factually incorrect or misleading.
If you want to know how seriously to take him, just ask him about how he believes Ft. Sumter to be the equivalent of Pearl Harbor.