Sorry FRiend, but Union troops in Fort Sumter "instigated" nothing, and your claiming they did reveals that you have problems sticking to the truth, and nothing but the truth, don't you?
Nor is there evidence those troops in early 1861 had anything to do with "customs enforcement".
Regardless, you also forget that relative military scales changed dramatically between Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor.
In early 1861 the entire Union army was only circa 17,000 most scattered in small forts out west.
So compared to the entire army of the time, and other forts, Sumter was hugely significant, nearly as significant as was Pearl Harbor in 1941, compared to nearing two million US military already on duty elsewhere.
And those two Union troops killed surely died as much from Confederate action as any others in the war.
HangUpNow: "LINCOLN's policy OTOH was strangling the American South labor/resource-rich cousins unfairly with high tariffs and import taxes; Ironically treating the South like ITS slave."
Total complete rubbish, since Lincoln took office on March 4 and ordered resupply of Fort Sumter around April 6, iirc.
One month during which Lincoln's biggest concerns were focused on matters like Virginia's secession convention and resupply of Fort Sumter.
So your words here are pure fantasy.
HangUpNow: "Yes, he and the PTB *knew* exactly when Japan was going to bomb Pearl and used the incident to force the US into a war in the Pacific."
The historical evidence on Pearl Harbor shows clearly that Washington suspected a Japanese attack was coming somewhere and soon, and so all the relevant commanders were sent war-warnings -- from MacArthur in the Philippines to Kimmel & Short in Hawaii.
As it turned out, none responded appropriately to these warnings, at least in hind-sight.
But the evidence also shows expectations of attack were the Philippines or Singapore, not Pearl Harbor.
Regardless, even with the war-warning and the first attack on Pearl Harbor, even MacArthur in the Philippines was not fully prepared when that attack came, and so was soon defeated.
Point is that blaming Lincoln for Fort Sumter is like saying that Roosevelt "attacked the Japanese" at Pearl Harbor!
And if that really is your opinion, FRiend, then you've left the world of the sane for a fantasy realm of your own creation.
They sure did "instigate" and bait -- THAT indeed was the mission of Union "troops" -- if that's what you'd prefer to call them. And who do you think inspected and enforced taxation of goods at ports back then? The IRS?
Lincoln maneuvered the South into technically firing the first shot of a war he knew he needed that was essential in the Northern public eye and gain support that in NO way supported a CW; But manipulating opinion was the function of many of the newspapers at the time -- same as today.
Number two, Lincoln and his Northern Industrial Puppetmeisters needed a war waged in order to keep the South subjugated and its tax revenue and agricultural raw material under their thumb.
Btw, the "truth" is relative to whomever controlled the traditional narrative and history books (yes, that would be the Northern victors, wouldn't it? They wouldn't lie outright or by omission, would they? ;-) Nothing has changed on that count 150 years later.
Regardless, you also forget that relative military scales changed dramatically between Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor.
Firstly, conflating Fort Sumter with Pearl Harbor doesn't apply AT ALL, other than afterward creating the obvious demand for military manpower and equipment.
In early 1861 the entire Union army was only circa 17,000 most scattered in small forts out west. So compared to the entire army of the time, and other forts, Sumter was hugely significant, nearly as significant as was Pearl Harbor in 1941, compared to nearing two million US military already on duty elsewhere.
An entire Union Army of 17,000 in 1861? Let's say I accept that figure. Lincoln then snapped his fingers in a call for 75,000 volunteers for an army to implicitly invade and submit a South while meeting with his industrialist-profiteers, who would manufacture the usual war machine toys.
Pearl Harbor: A distant naval/military outpost created as a firewall between itself and the US mainland and deep Pacific presence.
Fort Sumter: A significant southern SHIPPING hub for importing/exporting goods, of which the NORTH was a prime beneficiary. I'd say that was a good reason for it to become a domestic naval/military outpost. Agreed?
And those two Union troops killed surely died as much from Confederate action as any others in the war.
Stop the hysterics. The two Union troops died NOT in any heroic exchange of combat action, but accidentally during a salute to the U.S. flag when a pile of cartridges were set off by a spark.
Total complete rubbish, since Lincoln took office on March 4 and ordered resupply of Fort Sumter around April 6, iirc.
NOT "rubbish."
First of all, Lincoln's "re-supply" narrative was just a ruse, an obvious provocation. PRIOR TO this "resupply," Southern reps were dispatched to DC to help negotiate a compromise on disagreements and to tamp down the animus between South and North. Lincoln refused to meet with Southern reps.
One month during which Lincoln's biggest concerns were focused on matters like Virginia's secession convention and resupply of Fort Sumter. So your words here are pure fantasy.
Look, I understand your worship of the traditional CW narrative, but we've NEVER been told the real story from the perspective of both sides. Lincoln's concerns -- as framed by you -- ARE INTER-CONNECTED but far more complicated. Moreover, Virginia's secession convention was legit. There is nothing constitutional about tolerating a fundamentally unfair, tyrannical feral gummit.
Abe Lincoln and his Northern elite quickly operated out of the box out of desperation, with barely any electoral support other than northern pockets; Nevermind support for their plan to tear a nation apart with his subterfuge, collusion with industrialists, un-Constitutional tyranny. Considering the above, Southern States indeed held the right to their own sovereignty.
Aaah -- but then Lincoln played his ace in the hole: THE SLAVERY CARD! (which he was privately indifferent about by his own admission.)
There are obvious parallels between Lincoln and 0blah-blah.
The historical evidence on Pearl Harbor shows clearly that Washington suspected a Japanese attack was coming somewhere and soon, and so all the relevant commanders were sent war-warnings -- from MacArthur in the Philippines to Kimmel & Short in Hawaii. As it turned out, none responded appropriately to these warnings, at least in hind-sight.
Again, of course the winds of war were brewing -- it's war the Japs sent a delegation to DC to help head off the inevitable confrontation. But THE evidence that Japan was indeed going to launch a "surprise" attack on Pearl harbor was *already* known by FDR and his minions. NOT a part of actual "history."
Unfortunately, Pearl would serve as a new "Alamo" or "Remember The Maine!" as America was seen as unquestionably "provoked." Psychological entry into war with Japan would now be far more acceptable.
Support was immediate -- as was hoped in the case of Fort Sumter, the first shot of the war was fired by the *other side*, giving moral and ethic justification for declaring war ((according to Northern Newspapers -- some things still haven't changed.)
But the evidence also shows expectations of attack were the Philippines or Singapore, not Pearl Harbor.
Disinformation and/or misdirection. The Jap code was broken; Pearl Harbor was THE target. It's why only ancient battleships were left in port, and NO carriers. What a stroke of luck, eh?
Point is that blaming Lincoln for Fort Sumter is like saying that Roosevelt "attacked the Japanese" at Pearl Harbor!
In the sense that a provocation was desired in both cases in order to facilitate war, that statement is true. Yet, conflating the Pearl Harbor attack in which thousands of men died with Fort Sumter (two accidental deaths) still does not work at all.
And if that really is your opinion, FRiend, then you've left the world of the sane for a fantasy realm of your own creation.
Wait; You've compared the deaths of thousands at Pearl Harbor in a so-called "sneak-attack" with a full-scale planned bombardment to TWO accidental deaths at Fort Sumter, and *I'M* the one living in La-La Land?
I'd suggest to delve a bit more into historical sources of the Civil War as well as Pearl Harbor.