Originally Posted by aboutime
logroller. Why don't they? Could it be....because you say so? And only you are permitted to interpret actual Historical facts that satisfy your personal agenda?
NEWSFLASH logroller. You, despite how much you insist otherwise. Are not the final answer here. As for the argument. Give us some facts TO SUPPORT yours!
I have given facts. Read my posts. The confederate south surrounded union forts before Lincoln's inauguration, and shortly thereafter the South Carolina militia fired the first shots despite Lincoln saying in his inaugural address he wanted no bloodshed and wished to find a peaceful resolution. So unless being elected is provocative, and advocating diplomacy are fighting words; then Abe provoking the war is patently false. Furthermore, I've introduced case law defining the constitutionality of secession. The reality is the South lost; had they won, things would be different. There's a lesson in this in that when you start a war you're fighting not only for what you can gain, but what you get to keep. in a winner take all scenario, you damn well better win-- Wage war wisely.
Conventional story told only from the point view of the north.

Matter of fact, the North suffered zero losses at Ft. Sumpter due to said firing of the cannons of the South.

One more thing, back in those days, the range of cannons was very short. Perhaps that explains some damage done the fort yet no injuries to any troops there.

As to surrounding forts, well, why not?

As to citing the law of the constitution, don't you get it? They had left the union and said law no longer mattered.