The Japanese killed around 3,000 US Servicemen and did Billions of dollars worth of damage to our Assets, and then proceeded to threaten our allies and other foreign assets.
The confederates shelled some rocks, killed no one, and did it all on their own land.
You do something very ugly when you make such bald faced lying comparisons. What the Japanese did is orders of magnitude worse than what the Confederates did.
“These communities [the Fathers of the Republic], by their representatives in old Independence Hall, said to the whole world of men: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’
“This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to his creatures.
“Yes, gentlemen, to all his creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows. They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children, and their children’s children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages.
“Wise statesmen as they were, they knew the tendency of prosperity to breed tyrants, and so they established these great self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that none but rich men, or none but white men, or none but Anglo-Saxon white men, were entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, their posterity might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began, so that truth and justice and mercy and all the humane and Christian virtues might not be extinguished from the land; so that no man would hereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the great principles on which the temple of liberty was being built.
“Now, my countrymen, if you have been taught doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence; if you have listened to suggestions which would take away from its grandeur and mutilate the fair symmetry of its proportions; if you have been inclined to believe that all men are not created equal in those inalienable rights enumerated by our chart of liberty, let me entreat you to come back. Return to the fountain whose waters spring close by the blood of the Revolution. Think nothing of me — take no thought for the political fate of any man whomsoever — but come back to the truths that are in the Declaration of Independence. You may do anything with me you choose, if you will but heed these sacred principles. You may not only defeat me for the Senate, but you may take me and put me to death. While pretending no indifference to earthly honors, I do claim to be actuated in this contest by something higher than an anxiety for office. I charge you to drop every paltry and insignificant thought for any man’s success. It is nothing; I am nothing; Judge Douglas is nothing. But do not destroy that immortal emblem of Humanity — the Declaration of American Independence.”
— Abraham Lincoln, speech in Lewiston, Illinois, August 17, 1858, four days before his first historic debate with Stephen A. Douglas, Printed in the Chicago Press and Tribune.
So what matters when US forces are attacked is the monetary damages and casualty numbers, not the principle of attacking the United States. Is that what you're saying?
The confederates shelled some rocks, killed no one, and did it all on their own land.
OK so let's look at your standars of what justifies a war and what does not. You have claimed, over and over and over, that the shelling of Sumter did not justify a war on the part of the Union because, after all, nobody got killed. You seem to be saying that war requires a much higher standard than that. Numerous casualties, billions of dollars worth of damage, threats to allies or foreign assets, blah, blah, blah. You set a pretty high bar.
But the Confederates had to know that their actions could be seen, should be seen as an act of war. You don't shoot hundreds or thousands of rounds at a fixed position without the intent of destroying it and killing as many people as you can, forcing the survivors to surrender. So the attack on Sumter, which was deliberate, could well have led to hundreds of dead and, for the time, a considerable dollar amount of property damage. Two of your criteria met right there.
So what was the reason for the attack? Did the Union attack first? No. Did the fort represent a threat to the Confederacy in general or Charleston in particular? There had been no shots fired from the fort at anyone, quite the opposite. It was the Confederates fired at several ships that entered the harbor. Did Sumter close the port to traffic? No, ships continued to enter and leave the whole time Anderson's garrison was there without any actions from the fort. So really, if the U.S. had no justification in declaring war based on what happened to Sumter then what was the Confederate justification for deciding on their act of war? Was it pride? Hubris? Stupidity? What reason did that have that was oh so much better than the U.S. reason for treating the bombardment of one of their forts justification for war?