This is a lie. This is a deliberate lie, with deliberate intent to deceive.
You know very well no one was killed by the bombardment of Ft. Sumter. The people who were killed were due to a military accident while engaged in the firing of their cannon during the surrender ceremony.
You also overlook the fact that Major Anderson seized that Fort. He was assigned to Fort Moultrie, and without warning and with some degree of belligerence, he abandoned Fort Moultrie and seized Fort Sumter.
The people of Port Charleston suddenly had Union cannons looming over their city and harbor. At least one Northern newspaper had already called for the guns of Ft. Sumter to be turned on Charleston. To think they wouldn't regard it as a frightening threat is just naive.
DiogenesLamp: "This is a lie.
This is a deliberate lie, with deliberate intent to deceive.
You know very well no one was killed by the bombardment of Ft. Sumter.
The people who were killed were due to a military accident while engaged in the firing of their cannon during the surrender ceremony."
Now, now, you know better than that.
Compare: US citizens killed by accident at Pearl Harbor are still counted as victims of the Japanese attack, as are the dead & wounded at Fort Sumter.
No deception there, no lies.
Further, the Confederate bombardment was certainly intended to kill Union troops, force their surrender, and when it was over some were dead or wounded and did surrender -- from a Confederate act of war by any definition.
DiogenesLamp: "You also overlook the fact that Major Anderson seized that Fort.
He was assigned to Fort Moultrie, and without warning and with some degree of belligerence, he abandoned Fort Moultrie and seized Fort Sumter."
As he was specifically authorized to do, whatever Doughfaced Democrat President Buchanan may have said about it later.
DiogenesLamp: "The people of Port Charleston suddenly had Union cannons looming over their city and harbor.
At least one Northern newspaper had already called for the guns of Ft. Sumter to be turned on Charleston.
To think they wouldn't regard it as a frightening threat is just naive."
Regardless, Confederate leaders well knew the truth of that matter -- the fort was incomplete, minimally manned and could only survive a few weeks without resupply of food & other basics, which are said to have come from Charleston itself.
As such Sumter could pose no threat to anyone.
Similar situations have existed at Gitmo Cuba, Gibraltar Spain, Fort Mackinac Michigan, Hong Cong & West Berlin among others.
Even Portuguese Goa, Daman and Diu took 14 years before Indians invaded & annexed them militarily in 1961.
In that war Indian forces outnumbered Portuguese 10 to one, and no further war was fought because Portugal lacked any capacity for it.
But Portugal's leader didn't lack all will, and did order "scorched earth" in Goa, order fortunately ignored by his military commander there.
Portugal did not recognize India's 1961 annexation until 1974 after a military coup in Portugal brought a new government there.
Point is: plenty of historical examples show that Fort Sumter did not necessarily have to result in immediate Confederate military action against it.
That Jefferson Davis chose war speaks not to any potential Union "threat", but rather to political gains expected and immediately reaped from Confederate armed conflict against the United States, i.e., Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina & Arkansas seceded & joined Confederacy.