South Carolina seceeded and had a federal base sitting right in the middle of its real estate so it was a bit of a problem. Had the feds gave up the base (as they should have) then Ft. Sumter would had not been the starting pt.
You have no evidence that the South were destined to attack the North. They had an enemy base located in its state which was an unsustainable situation. Lincoln was very savvy and knew it was smarter to have the South fire first so he waited them out.
Why should they have given it up?
They had an enemy base located in its state which was an unsustainable situation.
So if Cuba decided that having that base in Gitmo is an 'unsustainable situation' then would you support their bombarding it into surrender?
Why should they have done any such thing. Sumter was clearly Federal property, the location of which was ceded free and clear in 1836, IIRC. At that time, it was an underwater reef, upon which Charlestonians desperately wanted a fort to defend their harbor.
The Federal Govt. owned the site, built the fort, and manned it out of Federal funds, per Article I, Sec. 8.:
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,... over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;..."
South Carolina had no legal or moral claim to it, nor to blockade its re-provisioning, nor to attempt to murder by bombardment the men lawfully stationed within it.