So you can 'accept a war' without 'going to war'? I think they call that unconditional surrender, yet somehow what Lincoln did does not impress me as being unconditional surrender, you aside your rediculous symantics games I think my meaning was clear. Oddly, as I stated before here we are talking about your diversion into the mind of the Lincoln instead of answering a simple question.
The forts and facilities were the property of the U.S. government and were located in what the administration believed were U.S. states and cities.
Does that make it a religious quest? I wish you'd clarify. When we abandon an embassy, it's US property, on US soil; is it your contention that whenever we do so it should be immediately followed be invasion and wholesale destruction of both military and civilian assets?
Negotiate the settlement of propety already seized by the confederacy,
Surely you are not suggesting that our government is agianst this... Maybe you should spend some time reading about asset forfeiture over on the WOD threads.
Fourth time, Non: Why did Southern independence have to be quashed, given that the men doing it cared nothing for ending slavery. Ready, on your marks, get set.... GO (x4)!
Very strange logic. Did you ever hear of Pearl Harbor? The US accepted a war on Dec. 7, 1941. We accepted another on Sept. 11, 2001. It's not what we wanted. It was given to us and we accepted it as a fact.
What you insist Lincoln should have done is no different than demanding that FDR or G. W. Bush simply fold the flag and allow our enemies to do what they pleased. It sounds like something a Deanie Baby would say.
No semantics games, just a correction of your error. You keep claiming that President Lincoln started the war. He did not, the Davis regime did by firing on Sumter. Lincoln accepted the war that the south forced upon him and prosecuted it to the fullest extent possible, resulting in the southern defeat. Now, how hard was that?
When we abandon an embassy, it's US property, on US soil; is it your contention that whenever we do so it should be immediately followed be invasion and wholesale destruction of both military and civilian assets?
For the most part those properties seized by the southren states had not been abandoned. They were simply stolen. Sumter had not been abandoned. It was the property of the U.S., manned by representatives of the U.S. military. Attempts to deliver food to them was met by southern agression and a southern act of war. The wholesale destruction that you lament about was directly caused by those acts. The blame for them lay at the feet of Jefferson Davis, not Abraham Lincoln.
Surely you are not suggesting that our government is agianst this... Maybe you should spend some time reading about asset forfeiture over on the WOD threads.
The difference is that government seizure of propery follows a set of legal guidelines and requires actions on the part of the courts. The Davis regime just stole it. But then respect for a judiciary was never high on their list, was it?
Fourth time, Non: Why did Southern independence have to be quashed, given that the men doing it cared nothing for ending slavery.
Fourth time, G: Because the men leading the southern rebellion chose war as their vehicle for protecting slavery. When you start a war you can't always be sure how it will turn out.