My point is that no adversary is ever going to reconize the legitimacy of his enemy, whether it was the Revolutionary War, or the War for Southern Independence. And what difference does it make anyway?

The fact is that the Confederacy was a legitimate government for the people who chose to be governed by it. Now politically you can split hairs and the might of strong armies do write the rules after the wars are over. That is the problem with this country today. Our government is getting away with too many things that are not Constitutional because the Government is too big and strong to be constrained against their will by the Constitution or governed by the will of the populas.

Asks the American Indian if they were a legitimate government or not? I suppose that because they were NOT reconized as a "Legitmate Government", even thought we signed Peace Treaties and Land sales with them, we were justified to treat them as we wanted to simply because we had the military power to do so.

It is odd that people will defend the legitmacy of the Continental Congress, but deny that of the Confederacy. It is a double standard.

No the Lincoln Government did not reconize the Confederacy as a Legitimate Government. It was Lincoln stated purpose not to reconize them. It was his refusal to even talk with the delegates from the south to even talk about a peaceable seperate, is what lead to the death of 600,000 soldiers and possibly 2,000,000 others over the next 4 years. Must "Legitimate Governments" always be born in blood? It was not the intention of Thomas Jefferson to create a country out of War with his Declaration of Independence. Lincoln threw the Declaration of Independence out the window. And if the Confederacy had been left alone to seceed and form it own country, they would have done so without bloodshed.

Fort Sumter was no different than all the many other United States Arsenal and Forts which had been siezed or surrendered throught the southern states as they seceeded. SOME of those United States Properties were siezed while the States was still a part of the United States and well BEFORE Those States did seceed. SO if anything comes close to "Rebellion" it was the state of ARKANSAS in February of 1861. NOT South Carolina in the following April.

YET, Lincoln did not pursue actions against Arkansas for sieging the Federal Arsenal at Little Rock 2 Months before that state seceeded, because Arkansas was not a political Flash Point. How was South Carolina in Rebellion and Arkansas Not in Rebellion?

The fact is that, like the Legitimacy of the Confederate, the difference was only in Lincoln's mind and how it best suited his political purposes.