Please behave yourself and stop the insinuations , if you wanted a cite or where I came by my statement simply ask.
I have, repeatedly as you've moved the goal posts or ignored. To wit:
sudden valley gunner post 100 said:
Yet the North put warships in a sovereign states territory they also instituted a blockade.
(emphasis added)
How many warship
s (your plural) did "the North" put into SC's territory, on what date? On what date did the supposed blockade begin?
How do these dates compare to the late December 1860 date on which SC forces fired on an unarmed supply ship and federal property? How do they compare with the dates when SC forces seized federal property throughout the State?
sudden valley gunner post 102 said:
Bottom line warship in your territory, is an act of war.
Now down to a single warship, but still no admission of the dates of when the ship entered SC's territory vs the dates when SC opened fire and seized federal assets.
sudden valley gunner post 115 said:
Invading and blockading before the deals can even be talked about shows us this wasn't the motivation for Lincolns acts he did without approval of congress.
What does it show us about motivation when property is seized before deals for compensation can even be talked about? On what dates were property seized vs on what date was any federal warship put into SC's territory?
sudden valley gunner post 141 said:
Moving a war ship into a sovereign territory and announcing a blockaded are acts of war.
On what date was this singular warship moved into the territory of SC? On what date was a blockade announced? Was this before or after SC fired on Fort Sumter and an unarmed supply ship in late December 1860? Was it before or after SC forcefully stole property rightfully owned by the entire nation?
sudden valley gunner post 151 said:
It was Lincoln who refused to meet for peaceful compensation for federal property yet sent a warship into a sovereign state.
On what date was this singular warship moved into the territory of SC? On what date did Lincoln (who took office in March of 1861) refuse to meet to discuss forced compensation for property the federal government didn't care to sell? Was this before or after SC fired on Fort Sumter and an unarmed supply ship in late December 1860? Was it before or after SC forcefully stole property rightfully owned by the entire nation?
sudden valley gunner post 171 said:
Once South Carolina declared its sovereignty, the foreign soldiers of the northern union who refused to leave and to continue to maintain a military presence were it wasn't wanted is an act of war. Blaming S. Carolina for the attack is nonsense.
So your narrative has gone from (plural) warships sent to SC and a blockade, to a single warship and blockade, to the mere fact that union soldiers didn't abandon federal property at the moment SC declared independence.
In all of this you've ignored requests for citations or to provide the dates on which key events happened.
You are convinced that South Carolina did not start the War and so when presented with indisputable facts that challenge that belief, you change your standards for constitutes the real start of the war. By this last standard, it wasn't Lincoln who started the war, but his predecessor Buchanan. SC seceded, fired on Fort Sumter and an unarmed supply ship, and seized federal property and assets the last week or so of December, 1860, over two full months before Lincoln even took office up through February, days before he took office. It was Buchanan, not Lincoln, who sent the supply ship to Charleston Harbor, who ordered union forces to move into and hold the not quite finished Fort Sumter. Lincoln set a supply ship with explicit promise it would only supply rations, and that no arms or men would be put into the fort unless the for was attacked.
Again, the problem with being "anti-Lincoln" rather than pro-accurate-history is that you clearly care very little for small but important historic details like the dates on which events actually happened or who was in office. Your narrative is that Lincoln was evil and so your history supports that.
I don't like Lincoln because he said something nice about my religion. How facile to even suggest that; how utterly sophomoric if you actually believe that based on what I wrote.
There is much Lincoln did that I abhor. There are other aspects of him that I find laudable. And much as the means and costs are distasteful to me, I am pleased that the union was preserved.
What is lost in your cult of "anti-Lincoln" is any room for any good in him at all. Whatever his views on race in 1860 or before (and best evidence I've seen is that he was somewhere between middle of the road to slightly progressive on the issue for his day), by 1865 he intended to extend the franchise to some blacks in the North and hoped to see the South do likewise for literate former slaves. While he single minded preserved the union--admittedly without regard to constitutional limitations--he also intended for a rapid and benevolent reunification of the South. All indications are that were it not for Booth's assassination of Lincoln, the South would have fared MUCH, MUCH better than it did after his death. Your cult also prevents you honestly discussing the South's culpability in starting a war. The first several violent acts in the war, from seizing federal assets, to firing on an unarmed supply ship, to firing on and laying siege to Fort Sumter ALL occurred before Lincoln even took office.
There are many interesting aspects of the War one might discuss including whether SC had a right to secede, how that should have been property handled by both sides, etc. But when you can't even acknowledge your narrative has factual errors, you are engaging in cult-like behavior.
Enjoy your cult of anti-Lincoln. I find it as juvenile and ill-informed as those who praise Lincoln without reservation.
Charles