However it does appear that you are completely wrong.Consider the following:
Here and Here and Here and Here and Here and Here and Here and Hereand if these are not enough, then this should convince you. Here
Enjoy your read and your new cognitive state.
Sixty years later, the Supreme Court sustained the blockade of the Southern ports instituted by Lincoln in April 1861 at a time when Congress was not in session. Congress had subsequently ratified Lincoln's action, so that it was unnecessary for the Court to consider the constitutional basis of the President's action in the absence of congressional authorization, but the Court nonetheless approved, five-to-four, the blockade order as an exercise of Presidential power alone, on the ground that a state of war was a fact. "The President was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name; and no name given to it by him or them could change the fact." Your Own Source
We were already at war when Lincoln authorized the blockade. The president had to "meet" the war that had already "presented itself."
Taking the declaration of the blockade as the beginning of the war was merely an arbitrary and formal way of fixing a date. Hostilities, as your own sources state, had already begun.
If there were any doubts about your capabilities, posting links to what's essentially the same document four or five times doesn't dissolve them.