All of the colonies were the property of U.K. government and the Colonists had no legal claim to it.
See how this works? We have to be consistent in how we apply whatever principle it is that we are applying.
What was the standard that Abraham Lincoln advocated?
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.
If you thought he was unclear about this point, he reiterated it again in 1852.
Resolved, 1. That it is the right of any people, sufficiently numerous for national independence, to throw off, to revolutionize, their existing form of government, and to establish such other in its stead as they may choose.
So in other words, he was "for it before he was against it", which is about what you would expect from a Race Obsessed Liberal Lawyer from Illinois.
Fact: the garrison at Sumter took no hostile actions against the Confederacy until they started the bombardment.
Other than leading them to believe all the forts were to be turned over to them, then in the middle of the night, spiking all the cannon and burning all their carriages while creeping in the dark to the never before garrisoned fort and taking it over.
The act of spiking and burning the cannons is something one does to an enemy. This was an overt acknowledgement that the Confederates were at that time viewed as enemies of the US Army. The confederates immediately saw it as a belligerent act.
The officers of the Union army also discussed turning Sumter's cannons on Charleston.
This in spite of at least two prior occurrences of rebel batteries firing on ships and in the face of the rebel attempt to starve them into surrender.
It wasn't "batteries", it was a bunch of Kids with a single cannon at the Citadel on the one occasion, and on the other occasion, it also wasn't "batteries", and those responsible were redressed for it. Some of the blame for that needs to fall on the stupid captain of the "Rhoda H. Shannon."
Fact: Lincoln made his intentions clear to Governor Pickens before the resupply effort sailed.
The Harriet Lane sailed at 10:00 on the morning of April the 8th. The letter to Governor Pickens was delivered after 6:00 PM on April the 8th.
Your "fact" is incorrect.
Only food and supplies would be landed and no men and munitions unless the resupply was opposed.
But they were taking along six ships armed with cannons, at least 200 riflemen, Mortars, powder, shot, rifles, and various other reinforcements of men and material. (According to one source, it amounted to "two hundred eighty-five guns and two thousand four hundred men".)
Winfield Scott's order explicitly states that the mission will be to reinforce Sumter.
Since the Confederates had been lied to/misled about the disposition of Ft. Sumter, why should they trust anything the Lincoln government said?
‘Other than leading them to believe all the forts were to be turned over to them’
if the Confederates were so easily duped, that’s their problem, isn’t it...? though it’s again nothing more than a matter of opinion, as everything is with you, as to whether Lincoln led them to believe any such thing...
‘The act of spiking and burning the cannons is something one does to an enemy.’
uh, not when you do it to your own guns...
‘The confederates immediately saw it as a belligerent act.’
so, what you’re basically stating is that the Confederacy, thinking themselves to be in mortal danger because they hadn’t been fired upon by the gunboats, and in the case of Moultrie could not physically be fired upon, and because they were angered after being duped by Anderson’s desperate gamble of occupying Sumter, decided to kick off a civil war by firing the first shot...does that about sum up your argument...?
So you're saying the South launched an armed rebellion and illegally seized the property belonging to the U.S.?
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.
Yeah you all love dredging that quote up and twisting the meaning far from what Lincoln intended. But pleased as I am at you admitting that the Southern actions were, in fact, a rebellion I would point out that the South may have been inclined to rise up and shake off the existing government, they lacked the power and the desire to win.
Other than leading them to believe all the forts were to be turned over to them, then in the middle of the night, spiking all the cannon and burning all their carriages while creeping in the dark to the never before garrisoned fort and taking it over.
Acting in the face of hostile intentions on the part of the rebels in Charleston, denying them the use of arms they planned to steal, and moving to a fort which was part of Anderson's command.
The act of spiking and burning the cannons is something one does to an enemy.
So is threatening an assault on a federal facility. Regardless, they spiked and burned their own equipment, not equipment belonging to South Carolina. How is that something done to an enemy?
This was an overt acknowledgement that the Confederates were at that time viewed as enemies of the US Army. The confederates immediately saw it as a belligerent act.
It was acknowledgement of the hostile intent of the Charleston mob, which would be seen as a belligerent act as well. One predating the burning and the spiking.
The officers of the Union army also discussed turning Sumter's cannons on Charleston.
So you say. But did they?
It wasn't "batteries", it was a bunch of Kids with a single cannon at the Citadel on the one occasion, and on the other occasion, it also wasn't "batteries", and those responsible were redressed for it. Some of the blame for that needs to fall on the stupid captain of the "Rhoda H. Shannon."
Not the idiots in charge of the rebel batteries? All he did was sail into port. How was he to know that rebels were looking for an excuse to perform yet another belligerent act?
The Harriet Lane sailed at 10:00 on the morning of April the 8th. The letter to Governor Pickens was delivered after 6:00 PM on April the 8th.
The Baltic and Pawnee left on the 9th. The Pocahontas left on the 10th. They carried the supplies and the men.
But they were taking along six ships armed with cannons, at least 200 riflemen, Mortars, powder, shot, rifles, and various other reinforcements of men and material. (According to one source, it amounted to "two hundred eighty-five guns and two thousand four hundred men".)
Stephens also claims there were eleven ships. But of the ships headed for Charleston, the Pocahontas carried 6 cannon, the Harriett Lane carried 6 cannon, the Baltic was unarmed, and the Pawnee carries 10 cannon. Where were the other 263 cannon? Not to mention the 2400 men?
Winfield Scott's order explicitly states that the mission will be to reinforce Sumter.
Lincoln's orders were to land supplies.