That is an interesting comment; brings to mind what General Grant said in his Personal Memoirs, chapter 4.
In one long paragraph the dying general explains how the U.S. got into both the Mexican War and the war against the South.
“The presence of United State troops on the edge of the disputed territory furthest from the Mexican settlements, was not sufficient to provoke hostilities. We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico should commence it. It was very doubtful whether Congress would declare war; but if Mexico should attack our troops, the Executive could announce, “Whereas, war exists by the acts of, etc.,” and prosecute the contest with vigor. Once initiated there were but few public men who would have the courage to oppose it. Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate “war, pestilence, and famine,” than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun. The history of the defeated rebel will be honorable hereafter, compared with that of the Northern man who aided him by conspiring against his government while protected by it. The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is - oblivion.”
You may very well say you have no idea what General Grant is saying.
If so, my explaining Lincoln's skillful use of the Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin incident will not help . . . I meant to say the Fort Sumter incident.
The South opened fire on Fort Sumter and started the war.
Prevaricate all you want Reb but nothing changes the truth of what the South did.
Just so we're clear on this -- Grant, like Lincoln, was a Northern Whig and Whig's opposed "Mr. Polk's war", Pres. Polk being a Southern Democrat who provoked & fought the Mexican war to largely benefit partisan Democrat political interests.
So, Democrats provoked and started war against Mexico in 1846, just as they did against the United States in 1861.