Still a legend in your own mind, huh? Making claims and expecting us to take them on face value isn't winning. But I'll tell you what, I'll distill all your wild claims down to three. Answer the questions concerning them and you can claim victory.
1. Your claim in reply 250 that the North was mobilizing troops prior to Sumter. Competent historians recognize that the North did not begin to mobilize until April 15, 1861 when Lincoln issued his first call for 75,000 militia. Prior to that the federal army had actually been shrinking in the face of Southern desertions. So please show what evidence you have that indicates these historians are wrong and you are right.
2. Your claim in reply 299 that the South paid 87% of the tariffs. Now if you look at Tassigs figures then the amount of duties collected in 1864 were 20 times higher than the amount you say the North was responsible for in 1861. Twenty times higher. Please explain how such an increase was possible, and I suggest that in order to do so help to show what it was that the North was importing in such massive quantities. Goods which you claim they could not be importing before the rebellion. And while you're at it, can you detail exactly what it was that the South was importing in such massive quantities prior to the rebellion that caused them to pay 87% of all tariffs?
3. Your claim in reply 367 that even though Southern demand accounted for an overwhelming percentage of all imports, as indicated by the percentage of tariffs you claim that they paid, these goods still were landed in New York because Southern "...port facilities were underdeveloped due to the Southerners’ dislike for using public monies to fund infrastructure..." Forget that the contemporary statistics I provided showing that upwards of 92% of all cotton exports left from Southern ports would indicate your claim to be nonsense, answer one simple question. If the South didn't have much in the way of port facilities, how did all those goods get to them in the first place. Forget where they landed, that isn't relevant right now. You claim that the South consumed the overwhelming majority of all imports, how did the get them? Regardless of whether it's a ship from London or a coastal packet from New York, the goods had to be landed somehow once they got to the South. If the South lacked developed ports then how did the cotton get out, and how did all those imports get in.
Answer those three completely, with documentation, and you win. If you want to do the same to me then so be it. Pick any three or four of the claims I made and I'll provide the source I used for the claim. Let's have at it.
Here's an article from one of the old newspapers I mentioned above, Titus. This is from The Daily Picayune of New Orleans in the April 11, 1861 issue:
Military Preparations at the North
The New York Herald, of the 6th inst., gives accounts of what is going on in this way, in anticipation of a coercive policy on the part of the Washington administration. It says that on the 5th inst., Gov. Curtin, of Pennsylvania, besides being closeted with Lincoln for an hour, had an interview with Secretary Cameron and Gen. Scott, and at 11 o'clock that same night had a private interview with one of Gen. Scott's confidential officers. There is no doubt, it adds, that Pennsylvania will be put upon a war footing immediately.
Massachusetts is said to have six thousand six hundred and seventy men, all equipped and ready to march at twelve hours notice. Among them, says the Herald, are two flying artillery batteries, almost as expert in drill as the best regulars, and several dragoon and cavalry corps, not surpassed in efficiency by any in the volunteer militia in the United States. The infantry troops are well drilled.
New York State, according to the same authority, is pledged to furnish ten thousand men at forty-eight hours notice, and other States in proportion.
How could these troops be ready to move on short notice if they were not already mobilized? Here's confirmation from a modern source [Link]:
In Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio, alert Republican governors secretly mobilized and reequipped volunteer militia companies; when Lincoln called for help they marched the next day.
Not at all. You challenged my claim that the tariffs were part of the cause of the South's secession, and therefore the Civil War. I provided several sources which showed just that. You then tried to move the goalposts. You lost the debate, it's that simple. I can claim victory because I already demonstrated the truth of my original claim, which you had (incorrectly) challenged.
I don't really feel obligated to have to jump through additional hoops you might wish to set up before I can "claim victory". However, I will note that of the claims you list, I have already disposed of 2) and 3) above, in my #436 and posts leading up to it. As for claim 1), it looks like rustbucket did a pretty good job of dealing with it in my absence. I would only add that Moore tells us (J.C. Moore, Confederate Military History, Vol. 9, p.24) that even before the inauguration of President Lincoln, Francis Blair had organised several companies of Home Guards in St. Louis, armed in part by the Governour of Illinois, for the purpose of acting as a Union militia. Of course, you'll probably quibble with the source, since it was written by several ex-Confederates, even though it is widely recognised by Civil War historians as a valuable and reliable source of information on the period.