[rustbucket]

But in his March 1861 Inaugural President Lincoln did promise to remain peaceful with secessionists, saying they could only have a war if they themselves started it.

Confederate editorials of the time called that a "declaration of war".

That statement was not what Southern newspapers (and Democrat newspapers in the North) were calling a declaration of war. It was the rest of the speech that led to Southern and Northern Democrat newspapers to say Lincoln's speech was a declaration of war. The Baltimore Sun of March 7, 1861 reported what the New York Day Book (NYC) did that succinctly summed up Lincoln's speech:

The New York Day Book has put in juxtaposition, as does the Express, the seemingly contradictory passages of the inaugural, and thus translates:

In other words, though you do not recognize me as President, I shall not molest you if you will pay taxes for the support of my government. We must have your money, that we cannot bring ourselves to decline, and if you do not let us have it peacefully, why, we shall be compelled to take it from you by force; in which case you, not we, will be the aggressors. This means coercion and civil war and nothing else.

It has been a long time since I posted a link to my old thread of contemporary newspaper editorials about Lincoln's first inaugural speech. See Link to newspaper editorials about the speech. The link to the text of Lincoln's first inaugural speech in that thread no longer works. Here is a current link to the speech itself: Text of Lincoln's first inaugural speech

I later found another interesting take on what the speech meant. From the Gazette and Sentinel, Plaquemine, Louisiana, March 9, 1861, a newspaper item dated March 5, 1861:

Latest from Montgomery

War considered Inevitable -- The Standing Army -- The War Strength

Montgomery, March 5 -- Since the receipt of the Inaugural address of Mr. Lincoln, it is universally conceded here that war between the Confederate States and the United States is inevitable. Mr. Benjamin said last night, that in his opinion, there would be a clash of Arms within thirty days.

Mr. Conrad concurred in this view of the aspect of affairs. The standing army of the Confederate States will be fixed at ten thousand men. Congress is now engaged in organizing the army. Of course, in case of hostilities, the number of men put in the field will be greater. It is calculated that the States now composing the Confederacy can place 80,000 on a movable war footing.

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "That statement was not what Southern newspapers (and Democrat newspapers in the North) were calling a declaration of war.
It was the rest of the speech that led to Southern and Northern Democrat newspapers to say Lincoln's speech was a declaration of war."

And thank you for another great post.
Could you offer a tutorial to, ahem, FLT-bird on how to use html formatting?
Nobody on our side can get through to him... ;-)

Does everyone here appreciate that the Constitutional issues in March, 1861, were:

1. Was secession as practiced then constitutionally legitimate?

   Of the six living former or future president, including Buchanan & Lincoln, none supported secession originally, but Virginia Whig John Tyler and Connecticut Democrat Franklin Pierce flipped, after secession was declared.

2. "Should the Federal government recognize secessionists as valid?"

   Tyler & Pierce said "yes", the others -- Van Buren, Fillmore, Buchanan & Lincoln -- said "no".
   Fillmore wrote that secessionists should be treated as traitors.
   

3. "Could or should the Federal government use military force to stop secession?"

   Only New York Whig Fillmore was publicly critical of President Buchanan's inaction on secession.
   The rest remained silent or said force, "coercion", should not be used to stop secession.

4. "If war starts, should the Union defeat the Confederacy?"

   Tyler & Pierce effectively said "no".
   Van Buren, Fillmore & Buchanan supported Lincoln's war efforts.

Northern Democrats did support the Union, but Franklin Pierce was a personal friend of Jefferson Davis, Pierce vilified Lincoln and was falsely accused of plotting to overthrow the government.

Fair to say, among US Presidents, the vote in 1861 was four to two in favor of Lincoln's policies.

rustbucket quoting New York Day Book:

"In other words, though you do not recognize me as President, I shall not molest you if you will pay taxes for the support of my government.
We must have your money, that we cannot bring ourselves to decline, and if you do not let us have it peacefully, why, we shall be compelled to take it from you by force; in which case you, not we, will be the aggressors.
This means coercion and civil war and nothing else."

The problem with this quote is: that's not at all what Lincoln said.
Lincoln made no direct threat of force, indeed promised no war except if Confederates started it.
Of course anti-Republicans chose to see Lincoln's Inaugural in the worst light, but they could have chosen otherwise.

Lincoln's intentions: "...to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force..."

Lincoln's promise: "The government will not assail you.
You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors."

Lincoln's word "assail" here is important because it refers back to Jefferson Davis' February 1861 Inaugural:

"If a just perception of mutual interest shall permit us peaceably to pursue our separate political career, my most earnest desire will have been fulfilled.
But, if this be denied to us, and the integrity of our territory and jurisdiction be assailed, it will but remain for us, with firm resolve, to appeal to arms and invoke the blessings of Providence on a just cause."

Notice, Davis promised to start war if Confederate "integrity" was "assailed".
Lincoln promised he would not "assail" Confederates and they could only have war if they were aggressors.

At Fort Sumter, Davis felt "assailed" and started war, as he promised.
Lincoln did not consider his resupply mission "assailing" and did see Confederate firing on Fort Sumter as "aggression".
It seems that most Northerners at the time agreed with Lincoln, most Southerners with Davis.

Our Lost Causers tell us that Lincoln did "assail", or at least would have "assailed" with his "war fleet" to Fort Sumter, but the fact remains that from his own words Jefferson Davis intended to take both Forts Sumter & Pickens, by force if necessary, regardless of what Lincoln did, or didn't do.

Davis to Bragg, April 3, 1861:

"There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations

Davis needed war to flip Virginia & the Uppoer South, that's the bottom line.