And you happen to know somehow that this was exactly the same number that would have done so had there been no Federal Troops with cannons overlooking the entrance?
You don't think it was a slightly uneasy situation for ships entering the harbor and not knowing what might happen?
Only if you're looking for an excuse to start a war. Which the Confederacy was.
The Confederacy could have attacked the US at dozens of places other than Ft. Sumter. They had no desire to do so because nobody was giving them any trouble anywhere else.
The Confederacy did not need a war. All they wanted was to trade with Europe without 40% or more of their money ending up in Washington DC and New York. Lincoln needed the war, otherwise the North would have been devastated by the collapse of their manufacturing and shipping.
One had a serious financial motive to start a war. The other did not.
So did the Southern newspapers.
If you can find some Southern Newspapers calling for war against the North prior to Lincoln sending those ships to Charleston, feel free to post this information. I will make note of it.
And you happen to know it wasn't? The steamer Nashville left Charleston and ran into the resupply fleet. Nobody was stopping them.
The Confederacy could have attacked the US at dozens of places other than Ft. Sumter. They had no desire to do so because nobody was giving them any trouble anywhere else.
If they hadn't gotten their war at Charleston then they would have gotten it somewhere else.
There are no reports -- none, zero, nada reports -- of ships not entering Charleston SC harbor for fear of Union troops in Fort Sumter.
So DiogenesLamp's argument on this is totally bogus.
DiogenesLamp: "The Confederacy did not need a war.
All they wanted was to trade with Europe without 40% or more of their money ending up in Washington DC and New York."
In fact, Davis did need war to flip Unionist states like Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee & Arkansas to the Confederacy (which did happen).
Civil War might even turn Border States like Maryland, Kentucky & Missouri from Union to Confederacy, (which did not happen).
Without war there was no way those states would leave the Union, so Davis needed war.
DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln needed the war, otherwise the North would have been devastated by the collapse of their manufacturing and shipping."
In fact, the Union economy did not collapse during the Civil War, thus demonstrating DiogenesLamp's claim here is bogus.
Of course, some Northeastern Democrats were motivated by economic concerns, but Republicans like Lincoln were not beholden to such Democrats and not overly concerned with their issues.
Republicans in 1861 were more concerned with preserving the Union & Constitution, and with stopping the expansion of slavery.
DiogenesLamp: "One had a serious financial motive to start a war.
The other did not. "
For both sides the issues were far more than mere finances, they were existential.
In April 1861 the 7-state Confederacy was a failure since the majority of slave-states (8 of 15) had voted against secession and nothing short of war could change their minds.
So Davis needed war to double the Confederacy's size & population.
For Lincoln, in April 1861 the existential issue was: could the United States survive at all, or must it split into its various regions?
Specifically at Fort Sumter the question was whether the Union would push back against Confederate aggression or simply give in anywhere & everywhere Confederates demanded.
But DiogenesLamp's excessive, exclusive focus on a few Northeastern Democrats' financial concerns tells us that DiogenesLamp is not himself Republican and has no background to understand viewpoints beyond his own narrow focus.