In what way? You stated that Lincoln issued the blockade after Virginia seceded. You did this in post 578. This was factually incorrect as I pointed out. Your response was not to recognize this fact, which was the matter our discussion, but to divert into the issue of arsenal seizures and the sort.
That latter issue is nice and all, but does not change my original point nor the fact that Lincoln installed a blockade against states that were not officially seceded.
Does anyone really think that if Lincoln had not extended the blockade to Virginia the referendum would have gone the other way?
Speculation on events that never happened is a poor way to debate events that did happen. My own suspicion is that it would have effected North Carolina fairly heavily, which was very closely divided on the secession issue a few months prior to their withdrawal from the union.
Was secession the more justified because of the blockade? It doesn't matter so much, if the blockade was a justifiable response to the actions of the state government.
Sure it does, as a blockade on foreign commerce isn't exactly responsive to a militia siezure of an arsenal hundreds of miles inland, or even a fort or two on the coast.
After the convention decided to leave the union the state government cast its lot with the Confederacy and acted accordingly. Before the convention had decided there was room for discussion and compromise. Afterwards, everyone knew what was happening and what would likely happen. Rebellion had already begun in Virginia. For the federals, a referendum or plebecite would not make what was illegitimate legitmate. You may argue with this view but it the unionist view at the time.
Whether or not a blockade was a legitmate response to the taking of an inland arsenal it certainly was a proper rejoinder to the seizure of a major naval base with its ships and weaponry. It would have been irresponsible not to respond to this.
I know nothing about the situation in North Carolina, but to say that it was "was very closely divided on the secession issue a few months prior to their withdrawal from the union" says nothing. This was true of all of the Upper South and some of the Border states as well. It tells us nothing about the post-Sumter situation there.
This has been a great learning experience for me. I certainly don't have complete knowledge of what happened. I learn things as I go along. But the discussion also proceeds. New questions and controversies arise as older ones are resolved or clarified or dropped.
All the Internet sources I found on short notice gave the date of Virginia's secession as April 17, and there must be some reason for this. Thank you for pointing out about the referendum. I'm grateful for learning something that I did not know before. But that fact, like all the others has to be weighed, analyzed and put into context. If you want to keep score, fine. I'm just interested in learning more.