Lincoln hoped that if he could maintain the appearance of an unbroken union perhaps things might settle down. Signs of federal authority in the rebel states -- post offices, mints, customs houses, courthouses -- were all in the hands of rebels. Stolen, in effect. By keeping hold of a fort in federal hands, the United States could maintain that the union was intact. It was also a matter of saving face, of saying that not everything had been grabbed.
Some Southerners, by contrast, wanted and used Sumter as a causus belli, a way of sparking a war fever that would bring the Upper South in to the Confederacy. I don't know if this applied to Jefferson Davis. He may have been the guy who has to get out in front of the hotheads in South Carolina, so as to preserve his own authority. But it's as true for all we know to say that Davis wanted the fort to spark a war as it is to say that Lincoln did -- if not more so.
South Carolina was faced with a hard choice: Accept the re-supply and reinforcing of an installation with declared hostile forces within its borders — a definite threat to South Carolina — or neutralize that installation and eliminate that threat. No sovereign state or nation would allow the buildup of hostile forces within its own borders, and South Carolina did what it felt obligated to do, and what Lincoln KNEW South Carolina would do (indeed, were the circumstances reversed Lincoln most assuredly would have done exactly what South Carolina did).
So we have Guantanamo as a provocation to Cuba, a challenge to them that will produce a war? Is that what we were doing with Berlin? Look, we have learned a lot more about enclaves and exclaves since 1861. Use it to understand the situation. Maybe people at the time didn't know what we know now, but a wise statesman should have.
Lincoln did not give a rat’s ass about blacks or slavery.
Something you two may have in common.
But what he did give a rat’s ass about was the revenue collected from Southern trade and commerce, and that revenue would be lost if the Southern states seceded; and that Lincoln was not about to tolerate (indeed, his first comments upon being made aware of the Southern states seceding were focused entirely on the loss of revenue: “But what is to become of my revenues?” he said).
That's not necessarily true. It's one of those stories Confederate sympathizers convinced themselves must have happened.
And where were those revenues spent? Almost exclusively in the Northern states. And what industry benefitted tremendously by the collection of those revenues? The railroads. And who, prior to his presidency, represented railroad interests? Abe Lincoln.
You are putting the cart before the horse. Federal railroad subsidies didn't come into their own after secession. I suspect if any region benefited inordinately from federal expenditures it was the West, where there were forts to be built and maintained.
Southerners complained that their cotton exports paid for the country's expenses. But it was imports that were taxed, rather than exports. It hasn't been established that most imports went to the South. Slaveowners took the money they "earned" from cotton and used it to buy things in the North, as much as in Europe, and those Northerners had the funds to make their own imports. Because the North had more people, more imports probably went North, rather than South, and more taxes were probably paid by Northerners.
If there is disagreement on positions, I generally welcome the debate. But your descent to the vile depths of inflammatory innuendo and falsehood smacks of the intolerance that finds a happy home in the camps of the lefties, not here. Your comment that I, like Lincoln, didn’t give a rat’s ass about blacks or slavery is a base and foul slander.
Whenever you speak, something is subtracted from the sum total of human knowledge.