When states exercise their power to leave and reassume their sovereignty, it isn't "rebellion." Again, Salmon P. Chase. "Secession isn't Rebellion."
And Lincoln never "invaded" until long after Confederates declared and began waging war against the United States.
Anderson invaded Sumter in December of 1860. The property ceased to be that of the US government when South Carolina voted to secede. Lincoln also sent a force of riflemen to strengthen his garrison in April of 1861.
A fake quote with no provenance at best taken out of context and merely expressing the basic idea that government, like everybody else, must concern itself with its income.
I have actually found what I regarded as a pretty good source for that. Of course I have forgotten where I put it, but I may run across it again.
But the point here is that the vast bulk of the Federal "income" was the consequence of the Southern trade routed through New York. If the South left and established it's own trade while cutting out New York, Washington would be revenue decimated.
The fact is Lincoln's government found plenty enough revenues to wage & win the Civil War, and his concern for such matters is entirely appropriate.
Bonds, Wealthy industrialists, Forced monopoly on trade, inflation, and all sorts of borrowing.
Without the blockade of ships preventing the South from trading with Europe, the North would have been economically devastated.
I also think it would have been good to avoid war. But for there to be peace, both sides needed to be able to have options and some freedom of action, and both sides needed to be able to save face.
When you say that your side is right and entitled to what it demands and the other side has to cede everything to them, you make war inevitable - at least if your adversary has any self-respect at all. When you say that the existence of a fort in the hands of the other side is itself an act of war, or that efforts to maintain such a fort constitute an act of war, justifying an armed response you make the war.
When you deny the other side breathing room and an opportunity to save face and demand that they give in to you absolutely, it's hard to see how you can blame anyone else for the war. It was people who thought as you do that made the war, and it's unfortunate that you haven't learned anything from their example.
That's why your claim not to have a dog in the fight or a horse in the race is so laughable. Of all the people here, you are the one with a dog in the fight. Most Americans don't know about or care about the Civil War, or take one side or the other in their view of the conflict. Of those who do, some say will admit that those on the other side had legitimate reason for acting as they did, while others don't give the matter much thought. Very few go to the lengths that you do to deny that the other side has any legitimacy at all.
Anderson vacated Moultrie when the nightly Confederate patrols, of the channel between Moultrie and Sumter, dramatically increased. Both those forts were Federal property. If Charlestonians really thought it belonged to them, then why did they leave it abandoned for Anderson to move into? And yet, you maintain that Anderson “invaded” a vacant Federal garrison? I maintain he simply moved into the much safer Sumter in light of increased Confederate activity. Can you tell me that the increasing patrols in the channel between the two forts, by the Confederates, wasn’t the start of the ensuing unpleasantness?
I ask you, if the Charlestonians and Beauregard and Davis really believed that Sumter was theirs, then why didn’t they allow Anderson his couple of days to run out of provisions and peacefully evacuate? Why, on earth, did they opt to bomb the smithereens out of their own property? I’ll tell you why: If Davis gave Anderson the opportunity to peacefully abandon the Fort (which was imminent) Davis would lose his biggest opportunity to strike at the biggest target in front of him. And risk losing Virginia and all that went with it.