Except of course, Sumter was SC territory, the Sumter attack was provoked, and was a legitimate police action against a foreign occupier.
But Davis was convinced that by starting the war he'd get all 8 remaining slave states to join him. Who was more wrong?
Davis didn't want a war and did not set out to start one. Lincoln deliberately sought war. That makes him more wrong. Remember the war could have ended any day Lincoln decided to live by his own stated ideals - "government of the people...".
Hyperbole and Southron myth aside, Lincoln could only legally free the slaves being used to further the Southern rebellion.
How does a man "legally" acquire the right to dispose of property in another country? It was a military measure, nothing more.
Which Lincoln accomplished with the 13th Amendment.
Which Lincoln hoped and planned to be a prelude to a massive back-to-Africa deportation campaign.
The organization tasked with enforcing the tariff and limiting smuggling was the U.S. Revenue Service, the precursor to the Coast Guard.
Are you referring to the US Revenue Cutter Service? That service operated against smugglers at sea. Enforcement of port regulation was the responsibility of local port authorities, which in important ports (where the customs takings were good) were backed up by the army.
Sumter is a cork in the mouth of Charleston harbor. It controls all the traffic coming in and out. That's why Lincoln wanted it and that's why South Carolina couldn't let him keep it. Lincoln made it clear in his inaugural address that SC could secede if they wanted to but he was going to collect the tariff anyway.
And, of course, that like Pearl Harbor Fort Sumter was a federal facility and it was attacked by people who had no legal claim to it and who's purpose in attacking was to start a war. As for provoked, other than retaining possession of a fort that belonged to the government in the first place I'm not aware of any provocation.
Davis didn't want a war and did not set out to start one.
Then you are arguing that he was stupid, because attacking a federal fort is not the act of a man desiring peace.
How does a man "legally" acquire the right to dispose of property in another country? It was a military measure, nothing more.
The Confiscation Acts of 1861 and 1862. Those gave the federal government the authority to seize without compensation any private property being used to further the Southern rebellion. And yes, it was a military measure. As Lincoln stated.
Which Lincoln hoped and planned to be a prelude to a massive back-to-Africa deportation campaign.
Complete nonsense, but even had it been where was that worse that the Southern plan to keep blacks in bondage as property for the foreseeable future?
That service operated against smugglers at sea. Enforcement of port regulation was the responsibility of local port authorities, which in important ports (where the customs takings were good) were backed up by the army.
Nonsense.
Sumter is a cork in the mouth of Charleston harbor. It controls all the traffic coming in and out. That's why Lincoln wanted it and that's why South Carolina couldn't let him keep it.
Sumter was a federal fort in a U.S. city and that was all the reason for Lincoln, or any other U.S. president, to retain posession of it.
Lincoln made it clear in his inaugural address that SC could secede if they wanted to but he was going to collect the tariff anyway.
Again, completely false. In his inaugural address Lincoln denied South Carolina's secession was legal or valid. So far as he was concerned it remained a state in the Union.