Bubba, to make a proper analogy to the Civil War Ft Sumter incident we have to change the circumstances do what I've already told you:
1) No agreement to lease the base would exist in the first place.
2) I would be sending a humanitarian ship, not battleships and troops
3) My top general, the top brass, and most of my cabinet would not be telling me to abandon it.
4) I would not have promised to invade it in my inaugural address.
Oh, and the Confederates weren't "starving" Union troops. They asked them to evacuate the fort. We're going in circles here.
In fact, Castro has a stronger claim than South Carolina. The US government owned Sumter outright. South Carolina had given them the deed.
2) I would be sending a humanitarian ship, not battleships and troops
So you would try to supply the fort, while you decry Lincoln for doing the same. Your only difference is what kind of ship you'd send.
4) I would not have promised to invade it in my inaugural address.
Lincoln made no such promise. In fact, he promised the opposite, "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
at least on the day before, there were deliveries of food, clothing,chocolate, lace,fresh bread/pastries & other items to the post.
there are reports that deliveries continued on THE DAY of the bombardment. (obviously NOT during the relatively brief shelling!)
at least ONE "privately owned sidearm" was repaired & returned to a union officer by a local gunsmith, the week before the shelling.
free dixie,sw