How can that be? A supply effort had been attempted in January, and that was driven off in what was truly the first act of aggression on either side. Yet that hadn't been preceded or followed by a whole scale attack on the fort. And had Lincoln landed food at Sumter as he stated was his intention, what would have changed? Would the threat to the confederacy grown? No. If Sumter wasn't enough of a threat to bombard into surrender in January then how could that change in April? And had Lincoln lied and landed troops as well as supplies, would the confederacy been in danger? No. A few hundred men could not have taken the city, and while the forces in Sumter might, might, have blocked Charleston harbor, but that was far from the busiest port in the confederacy. New Orleans was five to eight times busier, and even Mobile exported more. Eighty percent of confederate exports and almost ninety five percent of their imports entered at ports other than Charleston. Exports could easily have been sent out through Savannah and the amount of imports was so small that even if those could not have been directed to Savannah or Jacksonville as well, the amount was a mere 1/20th of the total. So there was no economic threat had Lincoln kept the fort; the confederacy would have gone on without any problems. And as for Lincoln's pledge to collect the tariffs, how do you imagine he could have done that with Sumter alone? Ships didn't pay tariffs there, they paid them where they landed the goods. Lincoln could have blustered all he wanted, no tariffs would have been collected unless South Carolina allowed it. So your claim that an act of aggression on the part of Lincoln, real or perceived, caused the South to act in return just isn't supported. There was no threat that hadn't been in place for months. What really changed?
Nothing Lincoln did had to force the issue. The status quo worked more in the South's favor than in Lincoln's. The South acted because their attempt to starve the fort into surrender had failed. They attacked because every other attempt to force Lincoln to turn over the federal property had failed. They attacked because impatient and because the status quo no longer suited their purposes, and that Sumter was worth a war. It was that single act that doomed the confederacy. An independent South died on April 13, 1861. It just took 4 years for the body to hit the floor.
Nothing Lincoln did had to force the issue. The status quo worked more in the South's favor than in Lincoln's.
Only in the short term. The fundamental fact is that the South's largest states, containing most of its industry, had not seceded. And showed little indication that they intended to secede.
The free population of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas in 1860 was 2,556,789. Of Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, 2,925,433. The border states, 2,707,560.
That's 2,556,789 free whites in slave states that had seceded, and 5,632,993 in slave states that had not. Where the slave states that had not seceded not only had 70% of the population, but 90% of the wealth, and 90% of the industry.
The South as it existed prior to Sumter would not have made a viable nation. The radicals in South Carolina knew that. And they knew that only war would get Virginia off the fence.
Lincoln may have secretly wanted war, he may have been trying to goad South Carolina into war. Doesn't matter. The South Carolina radicals needed war, and they didn't need goading.
Forgetting about Anderson's men fighting with a ship's captain on December 26, overpowering him, and sailing the ship to Fort Sumter with men and supplies? Or perhaps you don't think hijacking/piracy is aggression.
Yet that hadn't been preceded or followed by a whole scale attack on the fort. Yet that hadn't been preceded or followed by a whole scale attack on the fort. And had Lincoln landed food at Sumter as he stated was his intention, what would have changed? Would the threat to the confederacy grown? No. If Sumter wasn't enough of a threat to bombard into surrender in January then how could that change in April?
Silly question. South Carolina was basically alone at that point and couldn't stand off the North by itself. It would take a good deal of time, of course, to prepare enough men and ammunition a successful attack on the fort. Anderson had spiked the guns of Fort Moultrie when he left, so those guns were not usable by the Charlestonians. And besides, the South Carolina wanted to separate from the US peacefully if it could.
And had Lincoln lied and landed troops as well as supplies, would the confederacy been in danger? No. A few hundred men could not have taken the city, and while the forces in Sumter might, might, have blocked Charleston harbor, but that was far from the busiest port in the confederacy. New Orleans was five to eight times busier, and even Mobile exported more. Eighty percent of confederate exports and almost ninety five percent of their imports entered at ports other than Charleston. Exports could easily have been sent out through Savannah and the amount of imports was so small that even if those could not have been directed to Savannah or Jacksonville as well, the amount was a mere 1/20th of the total. So there was no economic threat had Lincoln kept the fort; the confederacy would have gone on without any problems.
The Confederates basically had no effective navy to face the Northern Navy, so it couldn't have stopped a blockade of its ports including those you mentioned. It took some time for the North to move ships into position and add new ships to their blockade fleet. The South had only limited ship building capability.
Fort Sumter was the first step. The Northern navy took captured forts at the mouths of the Savannah River, the Mississippi, Pensacola Bay, effectively blocking ports upriver and the Pensacola naval yard. Blockade runners could and did get through the federal blockade, of course, but Scott's Anaconda plan to strangle the South with a blockade worked. The South did not get its anticipated income from imports and sales of cotton. And as for Lincoln's pledge to collect the tariffs, how do you imagine he could have done that with Sumter alone? Ships didn't pay tariffs there, they paid them where they landed the goods. Lincoln could have blustered all he wanted, no tariffs would have been collected unless South Carolina allowed it. So your claim that an act of aggression on the part of Lincoln, real or perceived, caused the South to act in return just isn't supported. There was no threat that hadn't been in place for months. What really changed?
A normal commercial ship wasn't equipped to fight a Northern navy blockade ship firing at it. The commercial would either have paid the Northern tariff or not tried to run the blockade in the first place. the latter was the case except for fast, silent blockade runners that ran into and out of a blockaded port at night.
I erred in that Fort Moultrie had at least some guns up and functional when the Star of the West tried to get to Sumter. Moultrie fired at the Star as did a battery manned by Citadel cadets. If ammunition supplies were as limited as I think they might have been, South Carolina might not have been able to effectively bombard Sumter.