Well, that is simply not true. First of all, as I said before, the war was already on when Lincoln took the oath of office. It was in December, 1860 when South Carolina denounced Old Glory. And in January, State troops fired on the 'Star of the West'.
And it is simply false to say that Lincoln "undertook" government actions, since he was was not even in office prior to taking the oath, as would seem obvious. And even on that occasion, all he said was:
"I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it."
So you are trying to make a case in the record that simply cannot be made. But don't let me stop you from plunging ahead and wrecking your credibility.
Walt
Simply calling something untrue does not make it so. Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.
First of all, as I said before, the war was already on when Lincoln took the oath of office.
How so? I know of no formal military engagements prior to Sumter, and no, a skirmish between two band of ruffians does not count as a military engagement. For there to be a war, there must be military engagement.
Additionally, you yourself have placed the first shot at Sumter by the confederates, which would seem to recognize that shot to be the first official shot of the war. This contradicts your assertion that the war was already going on. Sorry Walt, but you can't have it both ways. It was in December, 1860 when South Carolina denounced Old Glory.
That's a political act, not a war.
And in January, State troops fired on the 'Star of the West'.
That's an isolated skirmish, not a war.
And it is simply false to say that Lincoln "undertook" government actions, since he was was not even in office prior to taking the oath, as would seem obvious.
Lincoln's was indeed in office when he undertook the actions I refer to. His first action in office was his inaugural address, which he used to endorse the pro-slavery amendment. And even on that occasion, all he said was: "I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it."
ALL he said? Not so. Lincoln continued, as you have been made aware of on countless occasions though it appears you have paid attention to not one of them, perhaps intentionally..."I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
So you are trying to make a case in the record that simply cannot be made.
On the contrary. I am using the record to make my case for me, as it clearly does just that. Getting you in your stubbornness and perpetual intellectual dishonesty to actually READ the record...well, that's another story. And as I said, in that, you have ONLY yourself to blame as I have been more than accomodating.
But don't let me stop you from plunging ahead and wrecking your credibility.
Why should I pay attention to a lecture on credibility as given by a person who has thoroughly demonstrated that he himself possesses not the good of which he speaks?