Maj. Robert Anderson, U. S. A., has achieved the unenviable distinction of opening civil war between American citizens by an act of gross breach of faith.
What was the breach of faith? That Anderson had Federal property destroyed? And it was Federal property in the first place; it did not get there by Democrat slaver means. And Anderson destroyed the property on his own when he was under President Buchanan; who, by the way, was a Democrat slaver himself and could have stopped the war that had already begun by the Rebel Democrat slavers. Even so, what Anderson did was not an act of war; but the firing of artillery upon him was. Democrat slavers started the war.
So I see you concede that Lincoln did not begin the war; but what you post is that he was devious in continuing it. War is hell. IMO, from the beginning, Lincoln should have been more aggressive in ending it. He made a mistake in having himself surrounded by people who were sympathetic to the Democrat slavers; much like today’s RINO’s. This prolonged the war way more than it should have. Instead he should have surrounded himself with General Shermans. All out war, like the likes of General Sherman, always cuts casualties and abbreviates lengths of war. Got to hand it to the Rebel Democrat slavers, they did it before Sherman on many occasions. Democrat slavers did everything to win the war.
Let me say here that I am a firm believer in the right of secession – if done properly, and for the right reasons; but the Democrat slavers of the War of the Rebellion did it the wrong way for all the wrong reasons. Those Democrat slavers have not changed for the better either; now they are proud anti-God, anti Bible, slaughter the unborn by the millions, etc. Democrat slavers have had a history of evil from their beginning. Think about it; you are defending Democrat slavers of today by defending the Democrat slavers’ history.
Welcome to the WBTS threads where “That durned Linkum tricked us!” passes for argumentation ;-)
Perhaps the link below might help you understand about Buchanan's promise of not changing things in Charleston Harbor, a promise discussed in his cabinet meeting. By moving to Fort Sumter Anderson in effect broke Buchanan's promise and Anderson's last instruction from the Secretary of War (dictated by Buchanan). Link.
Here is how Buchanan reacted to the news that Anderson had moved to Fort Sumter [Source: Klein, "Days of Defiance"]:
Buchanan slumped into a chair. "My God!" he cried wearily. "Are calamities ... never to come singly! I call God to witness -- you gentlemen better than anybody else know that this is not only without but against my orders. It is against my policy."
So you go to the Democrat slaver NYT and Charleston Courier (which looks to be out of business, thank you.)? No Democrat slaver bias there (SARC)!
LOL. Perhaps you don't know that the New York Times was a thoroughly Republican newspaper back then or that on many matters the Republican and Democrat Parties (and the NY Times) have switched political philosophies, with the exception of race, since those times.
FYI, Lincoln's two secretaries Nicolay and Hay said it best and gave away who really started the war [ Source: Nicolay and Hay in their book, "Abraham Lincoln, A History, Volume 4". Thanks for the source, phi11yguy19, wherever you are]:
President Lincoln in deciding the Sumter question had adopted a simple but effective policy. To use his own words, he determined to "send bread to Anderson"; if the rebels fired on that, they would not be able to convince the world that he had begun the civil war."
This is your tautology, but repetition does not cure your truth deficit, or the weakness of your argument, which consists mostly of ad hominem attacks, moral complaints (which can never, ever be met, and are the sure sign of an implacable opponent), and other appeals to motive in lieu of argument.
So I see you concede that Lincoln did not begin the war
Actually, he did nothing of the sort, but rather the opposite. Your saying so does not make it so.
War is hell. IMO, from the beginning, Lincoln should have been more aggressive in ending it.
Having unfairly claimed the palm of success in argument, you now cast it aside and concede precisely what rustbucket and I have charged, that Lincoln was at war from the moment of his election and came to office with a war plan in his vest pocket and deceit on his lips. Indeed, he had already to his credit sedition, subversion, and the coup d'etat in Missouri, in furtherance of his WAR aims: for if he did not plan, and was not furthering, the outbreak of a great war, his Missouri machinations would have been bootless, and even anathema to him, or to any man whose concern was peace and conciliation.
Your main complaint about Lincoln seems to be that he was not ruthless enough, a complaint that is mooted the by heaping up of nearly 1,000,000 dead, civilian and military, in the ensuing four years -- not counting men who, like Joshua Chamberlain, died of their wounds years after they were inflicted.