Considering that Anderson made his move in the face of a very real threat that his post would be stormed by the Charleston mob and/or militia then one could still say that the aggression was on the Southern side. But instead of going to extremes on just what constitutes the first act of aggression and who first performed it, I'd like to concentrate on identifying just what it was that rendedered the last act of aggression - bombarding the fort - necessary. You say it was Lincoln who forced Davis to resort to war. How?
Silly question. South Carolina was basically alone at that point and couldn't stand off the North by itself.
It didn't stop them from seizing Moultrie and Castle Pinkney and the Charleston Armory. It didn't stop them from driving off the Star of the West. Obviously they were prepared for a fight and had enough arms and munitions for that. If Sumter was such a threat then why not begin bombarding it, if for no other reason than the keep their heads down? Doing nothing in the face of such aggression as you claim retaining Sumter makes you appear weak, doesn't it?
Anderson had spiked the guns of Fort Moultrie when he left, so those guns were not usable by the Charlestonians.
They got them working in time to shoot at the Star of the West, didn't they?
And besides, the South Carolina wanted to separate from the US peacefully if it could.
Then bombarding a fort is an odd way of doing it.
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.
I think you're getting ahead of yourself. There was no blockade of Charleston, or any other port. Had Lincoln been able to land supplies - and even if he landed troops - there still wouldn't have been a blockade. The blockade didn't begin until the war started. So if Davis bombarded Sumter because he feared blockade then he certainly got things backwards.
So what really tipped the scales and forced Davis to resort to war?
What Charleston mob? Surely you have documentation of one, right? Anderson had received assurances from the mayor and prominent Charlestonians that everything would be done to prevent an assault by a mob [Source: Klein]. When did a mob assault Moultrie?
Remember our earlier discussion on another thread where Anderson had been very upset by receiving instructions dictated by Buchanan that "it is neither expected nor desired that you should expose yourself or that of your men in a hopeless conflict in defense of the forts." [See: Link]. This greatly restricted Anderson's options compared to the unauthorized comments that Buell had told him, But Anderson moved from Moultrie anyway and thereby violated Buchanan's agreement with the South Carolinians. Governor Pickens referred to Anderson's move as the first act of hostility.
It didn't stop them from seizing Moultrie and Castle Pinkney and the Charleston Armory. It didn't stop them from driving off the Star of the West. Obviously they were prepared for a fight and had enough arms and munitions for that.
In practicality, properties in a sovereign country remain in foreign hands only at the pleasure of the sovereign country. You don't think SC was a sovereign country at that time; they certainly did.
With 200 northern troops hiding below decks, the Star of the West was not exactly a peaceful vessel coming into the harbor. As I remember, it was warned off by a picket boat, then shots across its bow, then by shots aimed at the ship. SC controlled entrance to their harbor.
If Sumter was such a threat then why not begin bombarding it, if for no other reason than the keep their heads down? Doing nothing in the face of such aggression as you claim retaining Sumter makes you appear weak, doesn't it?
Prudent might be a better word. Why didn't we attack China over seizing of an American airplane or North Korea for seizing the Pueblo? In some cases, diplomacy can resolve such issues.
They got them working in time to shoot at the Star of the West, didn't they?
As I acknowledged earlier in my post 62.
I think you're getting ahead of yourself. There was no blockade of Charleston, or any other port. Had Lincoln been able to land supplies - and even if he landed troops - there still wouldn't have been a blockade. The blockade didn't begin until the war started. So if Davis bombarded Sumter because he feared blockade then he certainly got things backwards.
How else other than a blockade (and using the fort to enforce the blockade) was Lincoln to keep his promise of collecting Southern tariff revenue? Besides, if Southern tariff revenue were a small as you have repeatedly said on these threads, why would Lincoln say he was going to take it in the first place? Certainly if it were as tiny as you claim Lincoln could afford to let the South go without significant harm to the North. Maybe it wasn't so tiny after all.
So what really tipped the scales and forced Davis to resort to war?
Is there an echo in here? Been there, answered that.