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.
I trust this is a busy time of year for you as well, heck it's taken me two days to get back to this, and this is what I have to deal with? How discourteous to waste my time with a lie like this during a pre-holiday panic. Here's a tip: If you're going to lie, make sure it's not as well documented. Maybe you could find something obscure to make crap up about, like Seward's hemmoroids or something equally relevent.
The wholesale destruction that you lament about was directly caused by those acts
So the whole thing was fought over probably fifty acres of swampland and manmade islands on which lay US forts. Is that an adequate summation of what you've posted?
The difference is that government seizure of propery follows a set of legal guidelines and requires actions on the part of the courts.
No, it doesn't. Look into asset forfeiture.
Fourth time, G: Because the men leading the southern rebellion chose war as their vehicle for protecting slavery.
LOL. The men leading the Southern rebellion chose secession as their vehicle for protecting slavery & sovereignty. The republicans were hell-bent on war, thinking that men would scatter before the might of the federal armies. Their gamble was almost as simplistic and incorrect as your feeble response that the whole war was fought over possession of the forts.