Replies

FLT-bird: "Jesus H. Christ."

Somehow I doubt if He will help you when you address Him like that.

FLT-bird: "No, what he [Lincoln] said was to hand over tax money or he'd use violence against them."

Lincoln promised to do his job as President, a matter of some importance to those who elected him.
He also promised there'd be no use of force:

"While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable with all, that I deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices."

So there was an olive branch for anyone who wanted to accept it.

FLT-bird: "Your money or your life.
There will be no violence unless you refuse to hand over your money.
See? I didn't start it, Officer. I'm innocent."

Federal revenues from Charleston Harbor were miniscule, a matter of negotiation for anyone who wanted peace.

FLT-bird: "The same chance for peace I offered you above. Your money or your life.
I really DO mean there will be no violence so long as you hand your wallet over to me.
See? I gave you a chance for peace."

Nonsense.
Our Internal Revenue Service does insist I pay up, but it'll never threaten my life unless I go insane and start killing them.

FLT-bird: "Well of course HE claimed it wasn't aggression, HE claimed sending a heavily armed fleet was merely a "resupply mission" and claimed firing to drive an armed invader away was aggression.
Surprise Surprise."

But there was no "heavily armed fleet" when Jefferson Davis ordered Fort Sumter be "reduced", so that's all nonsense.

FLT-bird on Jefferson Davis: "No he didn't.
He would have been perfectly happy to go along on his merry way without ever firing a shot had Lincoln not sent a heavily armed fleet into the CSA's sovereign territory in an effort to collect taxes from them."

Lincoln's resupply ships had nothing to do with tax collection.
So your words are typical Democrat lies, because you refuse to read & comprehend what Davis actually said, now posted several times on this thread alone.
Davis clearly intended to capture both Sumter and Pickens, by force if necessary, even if Davis had to attack them.
Here is another example where your Lost Cause Myth is simply a fact-free zone.

FLT-bird: "you have GOT to be kidding in thinking that the percentages of where the tariffs are collected in any way reflects the value generated in that port."

In 1860 about one tenth of one percent of US tariffs were collected at Charleston Harbor.
There's no reason to think that number would be any different in 1861 or later.
So taxes were irrelevant to events at Fort Sumter.

FLT-bird: "In other words, were the CSA to go its own way - even just the original 7 seceding states - the amount of exports generated for the USA would be dramatically slashed.
Thus also the amount of tariffs paid in New York would correspondingly be slashed.
EVERYBODY knew this"

Right, you'd think exports would decline about 50% with the loss of Confederate cotton.
And, in 1861 US exports did decline from lost cotton, but it wasn't 50% decline, only 35% and the reason is other commodities increased their exports.
By 1865 Union tariff receipts had doubled over 1860.

Point is, Fort Sumter wasn't "all about money".
Money was a secondary issue at best.

FLT-bird: "If you mean to imply that George Washington or that the 13 colonies would have tolerated the British maintaining a large garrison in the middle of New York Harbor - along with an expressed objective of collecting taxes from the colonies at said fort - I will to ask that you submit to a drug test before posting further."

You might want to check your own blood-alcohol levels, because General Washington certainly did tolerate the British in New York for years after their "unconditional surrender" at Yorktown and for months after they agreed to withdraw by treaty.
Further, Fort Sumter had nothing to do with collecting taxes, so forget that.

The real distinction is that Fort Sumter was totally harmless to Confederates whereas British forts in Ohio & Michigan supplied & supported Indians who attacked American settlers & militia.
St. Clair's defeat in 1791 cost ~1,000 US lives, the largest bulk of the US Army at that time.
No battle in the Revolutionary War exceeded the US numbers killed in St. Clair's defeat and no battle in American history exceeded the percent killed vs. total US Army.

And yet, our Founders didn't declare war over those British forts.
Instead years later they sent John Jay to Paris negotiate their withdrawal, in 1796.
So our Founders could no-way be happy about British forts on US territory, but they did not insanely start a war they couldn't win over it.

This map shows nearly a dozen British forts in New York, Ohio and Michigan after the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

FLT-bird: "As the Providence Daily Post wrote on April 13, 1861, 'Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor' by reprovisioning Fort Sumter."

Of course anti-Republicans, Democrats always put the worst spin possible on whatever a Republican President does.
But that was not in fact Lincoln's intention.

FLT-bird: "Had they not fired, Lincoln would have only sent more and more expeditions to occupy more and more forts until he was able to control all ports and strategic locations."

Not necessarily, peace could have produced surprising results, enough to support those who wanted to, ahem, "give peace a chance."

FLT-bird: "Without that, Sumter would have been handed over peacefully, the original 7 seceding states would have gone their separate way peacefully and there would have been no war."

A complete lie since Davis already ordered Bragg to start war at Fort Pickens, regardless of what happened at Sumter.

FLT-bird: "Lincoln let it be known he was sending a heavily armed fleet to force its way into South Carolina's sovereign territory.
He then sent it."

Right, Davis ordered Fort Sumter be "reduced" not because Fort Sumter fired on Confederates, not because a "war fleet" arrived in Charleston Harbor, not because a "war fleet" had even set sail, but because Davis received Lincoln's notification that Lincoln intended to resupply Fort Sumter.
It was a simple piece of paper that drove Davis insane.

Typical Democrat.

FLT-bird: "Several historians have said the same as did both of Lincoln's personal secretaries as I posted above.
It is rather you PC Revisionists who try to deny the obvious - that Lincoln knowingly started the war and that he did it for money."

Jefferson Davis never claimed he was "tricked", that should matter to you.
After the war Davis also said the next time they'd wait for the Union to start it.
Are you calling Davis a liar?

As for "he did it for money" that is only a fantasy of Lost Cause liars and other Marxists.

FLT-bird: "Funny how you automatically claim all of the voluminous quotes from Northern newspapers I cited were anti Lincoln....and you conveniently leave out a lot of those quotes whenever you pick one to respond to. "

Sorry, I thought I'd methodically demolished all your alleged quotes.
So please feel free to point out any in inadvertently missed.

Now I'm out of time, must run...