So you thought it possible that a slave holder (Ruffin being an outspoken proponent of the peculiar institution) did in fact fire the first shot of the ACW, but you tried to obscure that possibility. Typical.
Walt
Quite on the contrary, and for you to assert the above is an exercise in blatant dishonesty. I very clearly noted that a slave holder's firing the first shot was a matter of debate, whereas a slave holder's acceptance of the south's surrender is an irrefutable historical fact.
As proof of your dishonesty, i point you to post 360 where I clearly and directly acknowledged the possibility you refer to. From that, I quote "there is some question as to whether or not the firer of the first shot was a practitioner of slavery."
Typical.
The only thing typical here is your dishonest representation of my statements. That is becoming a regular practice of yours.