"And considering the confederate congress was in session and the decision to bombard Sumter into surrender was made several days before the actual attack then there is no reason why the Davis regime couldn't have gotten the approval of congress"
Well, of course, the answer to that is obvious. No declaration of war was necessary to simply protect your own harbor, and no one knew for sure what measures would be necessary. You don't declare war over a defensive action. That would be idiocy.
And in saying this: "But abiding by constitutional restrictions or requirements was never a confederate strongpoint."
That makes the third canard you have passed off in the past 24 hours on this thread.
Here:
Was there a declaration of war?
The Confederate States passed "An Act recognizing the existence of
war between the United States and the Confederate States" on 6 May 1861.
This act exempted MD, NC, TN, KY, AR, MO, DE, and the territories of AZ
and NM, and the Indian Territory south of KS.
Sources: McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom; Official Records, Ser. IV,
Vol. 1
So, they did follow their own Constitution.
But Lincoln did not.
Defend from what? The garrison in Sumter had taken no hostile actions against Charleston or anyone in it. It had not blocked traffic in and out of the harbor. Hadn't fired at anyone or anything. The troops had simply manned their post. And when the confederate attempt to starve them out didn't work then Davis chose war. His bombardment of the fort was an act of war, certainly his secretary of state thought so. And Toombs also knew what the results would be. Yet there was no attempt made by Davis to get consent of the confederate congress before plunging the nation into war.
That makes the third canard you have passed off in the past 24 hours on this thread.
Falsehoods are your specialty. No declaration of war was made prior to the attack. What you're submitting is akin to if the Japanese had bombarded Pearl Harbor and then declared war in mid-January 1942.
But Lincoln did not.
But he did.