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".)
Of course Davis was. If you don't start the war the there is no war to stop.
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?
OK, so if the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor and sunk all those ships and destroyed all those airplanes but by some miracle had not killed anyone then would you still be saying there was no cause for war?
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.
There was still Fort Pickens and Fort Jefferson in Florida in U.S. hands. Why should we think that Davis wouldn't have then transferred his attention to those?
The attack on the Lusitania is what you refer to in regards to World War I.
The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915. The U.S. declared war in April 1917. Do you still contend that the Lusitania was the sole reason?
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.
You know, this is going nowhere because your arguments grow more idiotic by the moment. You seem to think that independence should be handed to people. That they should not be opposed. And that is asinine. The South wanted independence to protect their slaves? Fine, they chose war as their way to go about achieving it. And they lost that war. That was their own fault. Yet you blame Lincoln because he won. Because he didn't roll over in the face of rebel aggression and say, "Don't hurt me! Just go away!" You say that the South was stupid to start the war and the North was even more stupid not to surrender. Well I honestly don't know how to contest a crazy stance like that. I'll leave you to the other people on this forum who are far more learned on the subject than I and have far more patience.