[DiogenesLamp]

But instead you had Jeff Davis.

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.

[rockrr]

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.

In your fevered brain perhaps.

[DoodleDawg]

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.

We were talking about rational leaders shortening the war. The most rational leader wouldn't have started the war to begin with. But the Confederacy didn't have a rational leader; they had Davis.

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.

So then should the U.S. have left Japan alone, so long as they paid for the damage at Pearl Harbor? War was forced on the U.S., both at Pearl Harbor and at Fort Sumter. Once that happens then the prudent path is to do what it takes to keep the aggressor off your territory and to force him into as early an end to their aggression as possible. That is what Lincoln did. Again, your complaint is not over who started the war, you freely admit it was the Confederacy, but who ended the war, and the fact that your preferred side didn't win.

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.

Being attacked is of vital interest to any country. You seem to think it would have ended with Fort Sumter if only Lincoln had capitulated. How did the North know that?

We've had attacks on our Warships during which our servicemen were killed, and yet we didn't declare war on those responsible.

Attacks on our ships led us into World War I, the War of 1812, the Barbary Wars, and the Spanish-American War. It appears that attacking the U.S. has led to more wars than not.

I also would suggest that had the Confederates been trying to kill people, they most assuredly would have done so.

They bombarded the fort non-stop for over a day. The damage was extensive. I suggest that their failure to kill anyone was due more to the strength of the fort and the incompetence of the rebel gunners than through any intent on the South's part.

You mean "hurt feelings." Yeah, that's about it.

So what motivated the South to attack again? Arrogance, wasn't that what you said? Pride? Hubris? Or, to put it another way, hurt feelings? So...is your complaint that the Union, when faced with a Confederate hissy-fit worthy of a spoiled five-year-old, wasn't adult enough to ignore it? But if you ignore the badly-behaving child then doesn't the bad behavior tend to continue?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Surrender is not an appropriate substitute for the concept of leaving people alone.

So if you and your next door neighbor announced that you were now your own country, then started shooting at the local national guard armory because you claim that, too, the proper response of the government would be to leave you alone?

The North should have demanded reparations, but they shouldn't have sent an invasion force.

You can't invade your own country.

. I also would suggest that had the Confederates been trying to kill people, they most assuredly would have done so.

Confederate artillery not trying to kill people.