Quite on the contrary, and for you to assert the above is an exercise in blatant dishonesty. I very clearly noted that a slave holder's firing the first shot was a matter of debate, whereas a slave holder's acceptance of the south's surrender is an irrefutable historical fact.
As proof of your dishonesty, i point you to post 360 where I clearly and directly acknowledged the possibility you refer to. From that, I quote "there is some question as to whether or not the firer of the first shot was a practitioner of slavery."
Typical.
The only thing typical here is your dishonest representation of my statements. That is becoming a regular practice of yours.