[carton253]

Actually, both sides wanted war because they thought it would be quick and easy.

I like Lincoln. Thought he was a good tough politician. Because I admire his politicial skills, I do not tie myself up in the knots you do trying to justify what he did at Ft. Sumter. You can't have it both ways. He can't be the smart politician he was and be surprised at what happened at Sumter. The two don't mesh. Tey don't have too. We really don't have a dog in this fight so we can be honest about all the players.

He pushed the South, and the South back.

[carton253]

I wrote: He pushed the South and the South pushed back.

I could have very easily written: The South pushed him and he pushed back.

Both responses - how American. How American of them...

You push me... I'll push you right back.

That's what I love about this history. It is so American.

[Non-Sequitur]

I like Lincoln. Thought he was a good tough politician. Because I admire his politicial skills, I do not tie myself up in the knots you do trying to justify what he did at Ft. Sumter. You can't have it both ways. He can't be the smart politician he was and be surprised at what happened at Sumter. The two don't mesh.

Actually I think they do. If you read his speeches leading up to and including the Inaugural address he made clear his intention to retain ownership of federal property. Having done so in such a public manner he somewhat painted himself into a corner. He had little choice but to resupply Sumter, and probably hoped to do so peacefully.

[LexBaird]

The problem with looking for “first causes” is that you can always take it back another step. The South fired on Sumter, but the North sent resupply, but the South besieged it, but the North didn’t surrender it, but the South had no legal right to it, but the fort was in a seceded South, but the legality of the secession was in dispute, but....