[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Then why did Captain Porter think he would be sunk?
The statement that he might be sunk implies he was intending to engage in some belligerent act."

"Belligerant"? No.
No more "belligerent" than US resupply & reinforcement missions today to such places as Guantanamo Bay.
Like Confederates, Commie Cubans claim the US has no right to be there.
But if Cubans threaten our troops, that's a provocation of war and if they attack, that's an act of war.
Just like Fort Sumter or Fort Pickens.

Another historical example is US troops in West Berlin, surrounded by Stalin's Soviet tank divisions who demanded we leave.
But the US refused to leave and so long as Soviets didn't attack them, no war was fought over it.
Just like Fort Sumter or Fort Pickens.

[DiogenesLamp]

Rather than drag up ridiculous comparisons, you can just say you don't want to answer the question.

Obviously Captain Porter thought he was engaging in some act that might get him sunk. It's hard to characterize it as anything but a deliberate act of belligerence. It was apparently Lincoln's backup plan to make sure a war started.

It was a war the North badly needed to stop economic competition from the South. It was Rome and Carthage all over again.