To the South’s way of thinking, the garrison was the arm of a hostile power with whom a state of war already existed.
I don’t believe anyone in the garrison was killed and they all were allowed to leave peacefully the next day.
A far cry from the fire-bombing of Dresden that incinerated an estimated 27,000 civilians.
Of course in war the victor claims the moral high ground and gets to define what’s legit.
Sumter AND Dresden were legitimate acts of war, at least as far as I’m concerned.
Why did the South consider itself at war? Were they that eager for a conflict?
I don’t believe anyone in the garrison was killed and they all were allowed to leave peacefully the next day.
The South bombarded the fort for over a day and you're claiming that they weren't trying to kill anyone?
Of course in war the victor claims the moral high ground and gets to define what’s legit.
And the loser gets to make up the myths to justify their actions.
Sumter AND Dresden were legitimate acts of war, at least as far as I’m concerned.
Sure they were. But the difference is one started a war and one occurred close to the end of one.