Considering that the southern actions were illegal, then they did indeed initiate a rebellion or insurrection, take your pick.
... unitil Lincoln notified the South that he would reinforce Sumter (the tax collection house)...
Sumter was a fort, not a customs house. And it was also the property of the U.S. government and not the state of South Carolina. Lincoln had every right to resupply it.
... and he refused to meet with Confederate emmisaries.
The emissaries were sent to obtain recognition of confederate independence, something that Lincoln was not about to do. In any event, it took the south a matter of a few weeks to turn from alleged attempts at a negotiated settlement to war.
All after many federal properties had peacefully been returned to Southern states under Lincoln's predecessor, who sought a PEACEFUL resolution....
Not a single federal facility was 'returned' to the southern states. They had been illegally seized by the southern states. Legal ownership remained with the U.S. government.
The northern Declaration of War also stated that slavery was NOT the reason for the war.
What Northern Declaration of War?
Non-Sequitur, you make the same error as so many others. To you, secession must necessarily = war.
Had the southern states negotiated a peaceful withdrawl from the Union, ensuring that all issues of concern to all the parties affected by their actions were settled prior to the separation, then we would no doubt be in separate countries today. Instead the southern states attempted to unilaterally leave the Union, walking away from financial obligations that were incurred by the United States, and seizing anything that caught their fancy. Every action on the part of the southern states screamed 'war' and dared the North to respond. The southern military fired at ships flying the U.S. flag on more than one occasion. There was nothing 'peaceful' about their actions.
Much like a marriage, where the husband has been abusing his wife. She tries to escape, but he captures her, ties her to the bed, and beats her almost to death. But HURRAH! The union is SAVED!
A more accurate analogy would be the spoiled wife walking out on the husband, taking whatever community property she wanted to, and firing a shot at his head on her way out the door.
...Considering that the southern actions were illegal, then they did indeed initiate a rebellion or insurrection, take your pick. -NS
WHAT illegal actions? The Constitution lists NO actions of the States that are illegal; it only limits upon the federal government! This is a very BASIC Constitutional concept! (One could say, however, the States are limited by the fact that they agree to no longer perform the limited actions granted to the federal government. For instance, SC could no longer print money, deliver the mail, or negotiate treaties with foreign countries. Short of those specific 24 or so powers delegated to the fed, the States are free t do ANYTHING THEY CHOOSE!!! The 10th Amendment is instructive here...)
...Sumter was a fort, not a customs house. And it was also the property of the U.S. government and not the state of South Carolina. Lincoln had every right to resupply it. -NS
Wrong again. Sumter was a customs house, a fact well documented in Charles Adams' "When in the Course of Human Events". And when SC seceded, all federal property within her borders reverted back to the State. Otherwise, or foreign country would own property within her borders, which is an absolutely prepososterous proposition, appart from embassies that might be allowed.
...What Northern Declaration of War? -NS
Obviously, you didn't take time to educate yourself from the yankee propoganda you think you know by reading the post above, quoting the proposed 13th Amendment amost unanimously passed by the northern Congress guarranteeing slavery forever, and the Declaration of War, which stated that the war had NOTHING to do with slavery.
... Instead the southern states attempted to unilaterally leave the Union, walking away from financial obligations that were incurred by the United States, and seizing anything that caught their fancy. -NS
This is an outlandish statement with no basis in fact.
1)The South did NOT 'unilaterally leave the Union' at all. Each State, acting in it's own sovereign will, seceded according to its' own wishes. Initially, only 7 seceded to form the Confederacy. The remainder only seceded when Lincoln proved himself a tyrant, and, like the native Americans, determined to oppose his tyrrany.
2)The Southern States NEVER tried to 'walk away from financial obligations'. That is a lie that is easily proven wrong. The Confederate emmisaries sent to Washington were there with the specific instructions to negotiate the Southern states paying any debts.
3) No Southern State EVER 'siezed anything that caught their fancy'. That is a lie. They reclaimed what had previously been federal property, but ceased to be so when the States ended the contract, called the Constitution.
NS, your lack of knowledge of very basic history and the Constitution is disheartening...
...A more accurate analogy would be the spoiled wife walking out on the husband, taking whatever community property she wanted to, and firing a shot at his head on her way out the door.-NS
Let's see: in 1860, the South was paying 87% of all taxes collected by the federal government. About the same percentage was SPENT in the North. And WHICH SIDE was spoiled????
When the Confederate government formed, they immediately passed a low 10% tarriff rate. The city of New York threatened to secede if Lincoln did not FORCE collection of the tarriffs in the South. Northern newspapers cried that northern industry would be bancrupt before the next winter if Lincoln could not collect the tarriffs in the South.
And I know of NO 'community property' the South took; only previous federal property that reverted to the States. The South got NONE of the navy, very little in the way of military supplies, and in 1860, the federal government (which was FAR, FAR SMALLER then) owned very little anyway. Remember, NO income taxes, NO death taxes, NO corporate taxes, etc, etc, etc....
NS, I suggest you read Adam's "When in the Course of Human Events", as well as DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln", just for starters. Both excellent works which simply state the facts from primary sources, instead of making excuses of Lincoln's tyranous acts, like the northern apologists usually do....