“Aren’t you forgetting that whole ‘attack on Fort Sumter’ thing?”
You mean that thing that killed zero people. That thing which in itself in no way justified calling for 70,000 troops nor blockading Southern ports.
You know, there’s a reason people justify the war via slavery or by inventing a plot to invade the North. Because “they shot up our fort” just leads to questioning whether it wad worth it.
Plus, it’s a lie. Not to say that it wasn’t an act of war, but the war we got was not a war you fight to get back at someone tor shelling a tory. It was a war of conquest, not a war of wrist slapping.
I think it started out as a wrist slapping. It ended up being a war of conquest. Neither side thought the other was in it for the long haul, but they kept pissing each other off, and strengthening their resolve. By the time it had been going for awhile, there was so much bloodshed that it had become personal.
They didn't care what started it, they only cared to beat the other side.
What if the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor, sinking all those ships, but miraculously not killing anyone. Would FDR's response be justified?
Plus, it’s a lie. Not to say that it wasn’t an act of war, but the war we got was not a war you fight to get back at someone tor shelling a tory. It was a war of conquest, not a war of wrist slapping.
So it was an act of war...but not a big enough act of war to justify a war. Is that what you're trying to tell us?