We were talking about rational leaders shortening the war. The most rational leader wouldn't have started the war to begin with. But the Confederacy didn't have a rational leader; they had Davis.
Surrender is not an appropriate substitute for the concept of leaving people alone. The North should have demanded reparations, but they shouldn't have sent an invasion force.
So then should the U.S. have left Japan alone, so long as they paid for the damage at Pearl Harbor? War was forced on the U.S., both at Pearl Harbor and at Fort Sumter. Once that happens then the prudent path is to do what it takes to keep the aggressor off your territory and to force him into as early an end to their aggression as possible. That is what Lincoln did. Again, your complaint is not over who started the war, you freely admit it was the Confederacy, but who ended the war, and the fact that your preferred side didn't win.
The Confederates made a muck of it with their arrogance, but the larger principle involved, that people have a right to self determination, is more important than the hurt feelings from being kicked out of a Fort. No vital interest of the North was threatened.
Being attacked is of vital interest to any country. You seem to think it would have ended with Fort Sumter if only Lincoln had capitulated. How did the North know that?
We've had attacks on our Warships during which our servicemen were killed, and yet we didn't declare war on those responsible.
Attacks on our ships led us into World War I, the War of 1812, the Barbary Wars, and the Spanish-American War. It appears that attacking the U.S. has led to more wars than not.
I also would suggest that had the Confederates been trying to kill people, they most assuredly would have done so.
They bombarded the fort non-stop for over a day. The damage was extensive. I suggest that their failure to kill anyone was due more to the strength of the fort and the incompetence of the rebel gunners than through any intent on the South's part.
You mean "hurt feelings." Yeah, that's about it.
So what motivated the South to attack again? Arrogance, wasn't that what you said? Pride? Hubris? Or, to put it another way, hurt feelings? So...is your complaint that the Union, when faced with a Confederate hissy-fit worthy of a spoiled five-year-old, wasn't adult enough to ignore it? But if you ignore the badly-behaving child then doesn't the bad behavior tend to continue?
Who was in no position to stop the war. Lincoln was. Again, George III thought 15,000 dead was enough. Lincoln held out for hundreds of thousands. George III could have won too, but he decided it wasn't worth it.
So then should the U.S. have left Japan alone, so long as they paid for the damage at Pearl Harbor?
If you are comparing Ft. Sumter to Pearl Harbor, you are really grasping at straws. How many men died during the attack on Ft. Sumter? Wasn't it NONE?
Being attacked is of vital interest to any country. You seem to think it would have ended with Fort Sumter if only Lincoln had capitulated. How did the North know that?
If you are suggesting that the South was going to Invade the North, you are insane. Why wouldn't it have ended with Ft. Sumter? Do you have info on Confederate troop movements massing along the border or something? My recollection is that the first battle caught them off guard. They really didn't expect it.
Attacks on our ships led us into World War I, the War of 1812, the Barbary Wars, and the Spanish-American War. It appears that attacking the U.S. has led to more wars than not.
Oh geeze, looks like i'm going to have to cover some history for you.
The attack on the Lusitania is what you refer to in regards to World War I. The Germans did everything they could to advise Americans that traveling into the war zone was a very bad idea, which it was. (It was a British ship, by the way.)
As far as the war of 1812 was concerned, it was not just about the Chesapeake–Leopard Affair (1807, five years earlier than 1812) it was about the continued impressment of American sailors onto British ships. Apparently they felt as you do, that people don't have a right to independence.
The Barbary wars was the result of a continuous predation on American Shipping and the demanding of Ransom. Yes, American Interests *WERE* at stake in this example.
The Spanish American war was an utter Clusterfark. The Spanish didn't sink our ship, we ACCUSED them of sinking our ship, when in fact a boiler had exploded. We rushed to war, beat up on a weaker opponent, stole their possessions from them, and then ended up being as hated by the inhabitants as were the Spanish.
To sum it up, you haven't provided very good examples to support your claim.
They bombarded the fort non-stop for over a day. The damage was extensive. I suggest that their failure to kill anyone was due more to the strength of the fort and the incompetence of the rebel gunners than through any intent on the South's part.
I think you believe what you wish to believe. Again I note they managed to kill people in all subsequent contacts. "Damage" is not casualties.
So what motivated the South to attack again? Arrogance, wasn't that what you said? Pride? Hubris? Or, to put it another way, hurt feelings?
Yeah, pretty much. So you think responding in kind was a good idea? Two large powers both throwing hissyfits?
I guess it was too much to wish someone could have been the adult. The United States had certainly let people get away with provocations before and since. (Look up "Pueblo", and the "Liberty".)