[DiogenesLamp]

Well, no. There was a stand-off, a war of nerves. That could have lasted longer. Confederates could have waited until Lincoln fired the first shot. But they didn't. Once the shooting started it was war and there was no going back.

No it wasn't, and you have to be six kinds of stupid to assert that it is even remotely comparable.

We lost 3,000 lives in Peal Harbor, and Zero at Ft. Sumter.

The Japanese did many Billions of Dollars of damage to our ships and harbor, and the Confederates did little to no damage to anything that belonged to the USA.

The Japanese attack signaled that there would be further attacks in the future. The Confederates were content to just get their land back and keep a Foreign Nation's guns from threatening their efforts to create a Free Trade port.

The Japanese attack was unprovoked, but the Sumter attack was provoked by an Act of War committed by Lincoln in sending men and arms to reinforce a fort which no longer belonged to the Union because Independence had restored it back to it's original owners.

The closer analogy to the Japanese attack was when Lincoln sent 35,000 men to invade the South. It was unprovoked, many died, and much damage was done.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp misquoting x post #323 as from BJK #329: "There was a stand-off, a war of nerves.
That could have lasted longer.
Confederates could have waited until Lincoln fired the first shot...."

DiogenesLamp responding to x, but directed to BJK: "No it wasn't, and you have to be six kinds of stupid to assert that it is even remotely comparable.
We lost 3,000 lives in Peal Harbor, and Zero at Ft. Sumter."

No, in fact, two Union troops died and four more seriously wounded as a result of Confederate actions.
That's of a total force of 85, about 7%, which is roughly the same percent of casualties at Pearl Harbor & Hawaii, December 7, 1941.

DiogenesLamp: "The Japanese did many Billions of Dollars of damage to our ships and harbor, and the Confederates did little to no damage to anything that belonged to the USA."

More nonsense.
In fact, Fort Sumter in 1861 was as relatively significant to the entire Union Army of about 17,000 troops as was Pearl Harbor in 1941 to the entire American military of around two million.
Fort Sumter was more significant in 1861 than is Gitmo today, and just like Guantanamo, a government's dispute of its ownership has no bearing on US military dispositions.
If that government were to attack US troops, it would be a certain act of war.

DiogenesLamp: "The Japanese attack was unprovoked, but the Sumter attack was provoked by an Act of War committed by Lincoln in sending men and arms to reinforce a fort which no longer belonged to the Union because Independence had restored it back to it's original owners."

Total bunk.
No law in any country has ever decreed that a change in government (self declared or otherwise) automatically changes any ownership of any US military property.
This is precisely the argument of Communist Cubans regarding Guantanamo, and it is just as wrong with them as it was in 1861 with the Confederacy's claims to Fort Sumter.

DiogenesLamp: "The closer analogy to the Japanese attack was when Lincoln sent 35,000 men to invade the South.
It was unprovoked, many died, and much damage was done."

Totally laughable.

1. After the Confederacy provoked war (December 1860 through April 1861) dozens of times through armed seizures of major Federal properties -- forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc.

2. After the Confederacy started war (April 12, 1861) by its military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter.

3. After the Confederacy formally declared war (May 6, 1861) on the United States.

4. After the Confederacy sent military aid to pro-Confederates fighting in Union Missouri (May 1, 1861).

5. Then the Union government had no choice except to defeat the Confederate military force which represented an existential threat to the United States.