But instead you had Jeff Davis.
No, I do not. In fact I have pointed out to others arguing on the same side as I, that the attack on Ft. Sumter was what cost them Independence. They shouldn't have done it.
But they did. And having done so then your complaint seems to be that the North just didn't surrender right off the bat. Instead shouldn't your ire be directed at those who started the war in the first place?
Now I will point out to you that nobody was killed in the attack, and the response to it was excessive and disproportionate.
One of the most ridiculous arguments in the Confederate arsenal. Nobody was killed, so no harm no foul. It was a deliberate attack on a federal facility, a conscious act of war. The fact that nobody was killed is meaningless. The Confederacy was certainly trying to force the fort into surrender, and kill as many as was necessary to accomplish that.
Oh, we have another admission that the North wasn't fighting to end slavery. Good. So what was the North fighting for?
Because they had been attacked. So their goal was to preserve the Union in the face of armed rebellion. Why did the South start the war?
Well done.
Sic semper tyrannis!
Hard to see how he is relevant because his wasn't commanding the invading force. You see, Lincoln is roughly analogous to George III, not Jeff Davis.
But they did. And having done so then your complaint seems to be that the North just didn't surrender right off the bat.
Surrender is not an appropriate substitute for the concept of leaving people alone. The North should have demanded reparations, but they shouldn't have sent an invasion force.
Instead shouldn't your ire be directed at those who started the war in the first place?
The Confederates made a muck of it with their arrogance, but the larger principle involved, that people have a right to self determination, is more important than the hurt feelings from being kicked out of a Fort. No vital interest of the North was threatened.
One of the most ridiculous arguments in the Confederate arsenal. Nobody was killed, so no harm no foul. It was a deliberate attack on a federal facility, a conscious act of war. The fact that nobody was killed is meaningless. The Confederacy was certainly trying to force the fort into surrender, and kill as many as was necessary to accomplish that.
We've had attacks on our Warships during which our servicemen were killed, and yet we didn't declare war on those responsible. I also would suggest that had the Confederates been trying to kill people, they most assuredly would have done so. They certainly managed it in all subsequent campaigns.
Because they had been attacked.
You mean "hurt feelings." Yeah, that's about it. *THAT* is the most honest explanation for the war. It started with the arrogance of the South picking a symbolic fight, and the North retaliating excessively because of hurt feelings.
The Civil war started as a big Pissing contest.