So your position is that the only hope for peace was to turn over all federal facilities to the Davis regime and accept the legitimacy of the soutern rebellion. In other words, complete and total surrender. Why should Lincoln do that? Why reward rebellion? Why follow acts of aggression against you with acts of appeasement towards the aggressors? Where is the sense in that?
Lincoln believed the southern acts of secession were illegal, and that the southern states were not a sovereign nation but were merely areas in rebellion. The political reality was that the Lincoln government either took the correct position that the rebellion was illegal or surrender and accept it. Lincoln chose to stand by his convictions, and in your eyes that makes him a war-monger. War may have been coming, but as Lincoln himself pointed out the south would not have its war without the south initiating it. And that is what the south did.
Furthermore you then justify Lincoln's action by railing against Davis... It's a red flag and a diversion. I hold Davis as equally culpable as Lincoln. I don't try to excuse what Davis did... What would be the point? Davis was just as politically motivated as Lincoln was.
I would have a hard time finding any evidence in your posts to date to support that. It all seems to be Lincoln's fault, and that's consistent with myth of the Lost Cause. There did not have to be a war started at Sumter. The only reason that it did start was that the Davis regime wanted it.
I am amused by your choice of words in the first sentence... because you are using war terms when describing Lincoln's actions/motives concerning Ft. Sumter. complete and total surrender...acts of aggression ...acts of appeasement
Thank you for the history lesson, but I do understand that Lincoln considered the South in rebellion...
in your eyes that makes him a warmonger
A warmonger? Really? Did I make Lincoln a warmonger? I don't think so.
but as Lincoln himself pointed out the south would not have its war without the south initiating it. And that is what the south did.
How Bill Clinton of Lincoln to suggest that if he forced a confrontation and played out the drama (and he knew how the drama would unfold) then somehow all the responsibility would lie with South.
There is a subtle deceit and dishonesty in Lincoln's actions. He said that he would not initiate war, then proceeded to act in a manner that he knew would clearly do just that. His words were noble and full of peace. His actions were not. He lit a match to a can of gasoline, and then has the audacity to blame the can of gasoline when it erupts into flames.
No... my posts have consistently said that the South was spoiling for a fight. They were not dragged into the fight. They were as culpable as the North.
It seems to me that you resent any post that dares suggest that the North might be responsible or culpable for any part of the Civil War. You have put 110% of the blame on the South. And you defend the North's innocence with passion. (Good for you) So, it is no wonder you see insult and accusations against the North where no insult or accusations have been levied.
lincoln, the tyrant, was NOT INTERESTED in PEACE. he wanted CONQUEST, WAR & personal POLITICAL POWER from the war! so did the majority of the radicals in congress.
IF the damnedyankees had had a brain, they would have peacefully resolved the issue. instead they planned/prosecuted a war of CONQUEST, which cost the needless loss of over a MILLION citizens!
one wonders, if TODAY the southland chose to secede again, how many MILLIONS of people would the elitist,south HATING, freedom-despising, arrogant damnyankees be willing to KILL????
i suspect the loss of 25-100,000,000 would be A-OK with them, as long as they felt that they could remain in control of the remainder, as in "king of the smoking refuse pile".
to the damnyankee elitists, POWER and the pursuit of more power/money is EVERYTHING.
free dixie,sw