Your analogy is illogical. The bombing of Hiroshima did NOT stem directly from Pearl Harbor but from the circumstances of the next 4 years of war in between. Lincoln's invasion into the south and his blockade DID come as a direct result of that single incident at the fort. Might I also remind you that Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack with massive casualties and no hopes of taking the base whereas Sumter was an anticipated attack with zero casualties and a surrender of the fort on non violent terms.
Accepting for a moment that the confederate claims of independence was valid, then the confederacy initiated hostilities at Sumter
No, not really. The first shot was fired a day earlier from a yankee ship trying to impede access to the harbor.
The Union had war forced on them and carried it out to the end.
As always it all goes back to your shunning of responsibility. To you it is all "The south made us do it"
That's exactly right.
Walt
So if nobody had been killed at Pearl Harbor then it would have been OK? No Second World War for the United States?
No, not really. The first shot was fired a day earlier from a yankee ship trying to impede access to the harbor.
Had the Lane not fired the shot, been sunk in the storm, or never left New York the war would have started on the 12th because the Davis government had already issued orders.
To you it is all "The south made us do it"
As opposed to your contention that the evil Yankees caused it all? Davis knew what was going to happen. Word had been sent to South Carolina and to Sumter that a resupply mission would be made, food only, no arms or reinforcements unless the attempt was opposed. Davis could have gone the peaceful route but instead chose war, in direct opposition to the advice of at least one member of his cabinet. Davis had to choose between peace and war and he chose war.