[GOPcapitalist]

but the rebels were determined to realize their desires through force, and I don't fault Lincoln for taking steps to maintain the lawful order.

Last I checked, that "force" was only intended to remove a hostile nation's troops from within the confederate's own border. Lincoln's steps to "maintain the lawful order" on the other hand appeared in the form of a full forced military invasion of the south.

[Non-Sequitur]

Last I checked, that "force" was only intended to remove a hostile nation's troops from within the confederate's own border.

The hostile 'nation' in the picture was the confederacy. The Union soldiers were in a fort that was the property of the United States and no hostile actions on any kind had been made before the confederacy decided to shell the fort.

[x]

Surely there's nothing surprising about that. If you want to work peacefully and legally for political change -- even for dissolution of the Union -- no one will stop you. When you fire on federal troops, you will have to expect that the government will respond with full force. The alternative -- you shooting and expecting the authorities won't respond with the resources they have, doesn't happen in the real world. There is a right of rebellion and a right to self-defense, but neither justified the assault on Sumter. If this seems unfair or excessively harsh, imagine if county or city police had fired on the state militia, the response would be the same. What's striking is how some people who rightly object to excessive federal power and abuses justify the same sort of conduct when states or competing nations engage in it.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Last I checked, that "force" was only intended to remove a hostile nation's troops from within the confederate's own border.

The So-called CSA never had any borders. It never had a lawful existance. You can declare -your- independence and you'll probably be able to maintain your sovereignty longer than the so-called seceded states did.

Walt