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.
I suppose to their way of thinking, it was that whole "long train of abuses and usurpations" thing.
Were they that eager for a conflict?
Not to hear them tell it. They wanted to leave the Union which they saw as their right to do. To go their own way in peace.
The South bombarded the fort for over a day and you're claiming that they weren't trying to kill anyone?
Well, it certainly wasn't a sneak attack. Beauregard's actions leading up to the bombardment strongly suggest he didn't want to kill anybody, and ultimately he didn't.
Anderson was given warning upon warning to leave and was even finally told on April 11th that firing would begin the following morning if he didn't.
As it turned out, he ended up surrendering two days later anyway. He and his men were allowed to leave Charleston unmolested on a Union frigate, IIRC.
Do you think Beauregard wanted to kill anybody? If so, didn't he have a pretty strange way of going about it?
I just read that there were indeed casualties at Ft. Sumter. Not combat casualties, but after the surrender during the flag lowering ceremony involving an exploding cannon and cartridges.
http://readme.readmedia.com/New-Yorker-Was-First-Casualty-of-the-Civil-War/2213587