They sure did "instigate" and bait -- THAT indeed was the mission of Union "troops" -- if that's what you'd prefer to call them. And who do you think inspected and enforced taxation of goods at ports back then? The IRS?
Lincoln maneuvered the South into technically firing the first shot of a war he knew he needed that was essential in the Northern public eye and gain support that in NO way supported a CW; But manipulating opinion was the function of many of the newspapers at the time -- same as today.
Number two, Lincoln and his Northern Industrial Puppetmeisters needed a war waged in order to keep the South subjugated and its tax revenue and agricultural raw material under their thumb.
Btw, the "truth" is relative to whomever controlled the traditional narrative and history books (yes, that would be the Northern victors, wouldn't it? They wouldn't lie outright or by omission, would they? ;-) Nothing has changed on that count 150 years later.
Regardless, you also forget that relative military scales changed dramatically between Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor.
Firstly, conflating Fort Sumter with Pearl Harbor doesn't apply AT ALL, other than afterward creating the obvious demand for military manpower and equipment.
In early 1861 the entire Union army was only circa 17,000 most scattered in small forts out west. So compared to the entire army of the time, and other forts, Sumter was hugely significant, nearly as significant as was Pearl Harbor in 1941, compared to nearing two million US military already on duty elsewhere.
An entire Union Army of 17,000 in 1861? Let's say I accept that figure. Lincoln then snapped his fingers in a call for 75,000 volunteers for an army to implicitly invade and submit a South while meeting with his industrialist-profiteers, who would manufacture the usual war machine toys.
Pearl Harbor: A distant naval/military outpost created as a firewall between itself and the US mainland and deep Pacific presence.
Fort Sumter: A significant southern SHIPPING hub for importing/exporting goods, of which the NORTH was a prime beneficiary. I'd say that was a good reason for it to become a domestic naval/military outpost. Agreed?
And those two Union troops killed surely died as much from Confederate action as any others in the war.
Stop the hysterics. The two Union troops died NOT in any heroic exchange of combat action, but accidentally during a salute to the U.S. flag when a pile of cartridges were set off by a spark.
Total complete rubbish, since Lincoln took office on March 4 and ordered resupply of Fort Sumter around April 6, iirc.
NOT "rubbish."
First of all, Lincoln's "re-supply" narrative was just a ruse, an obvious provocation. PRIOR TO this "resupply," Southern reps were dispatched to DC to help negotiate a compromise on disagreements and to tamp down the animus between South and North. Lincoln refused to meet with Southern reps.
One month during which Lincoln's biggest concerns were focused on matters like Virginia's secession convention and resupply of Fort Sumter. So your words here are pure fantasy.
Look, I understand your worship of the traditional CW narrative, but we've NEVER been told the real story from the perspective of both sides. Lincoln's concerns -- as framed by you -- ARE INTER-CONNECTED but far more complicated. Moreover, Virginia's secession convention was legit. There is nothing constitutional about tolerating a fundamentally unfair, tyrannical feral gummit.
Abe Lincoln and his Northern elite quickly operated out of the box out of desperation, with barely any electoral support other than northern pockets; Nevermind support for their plan to tear a nation apart with his subterfuge, collusion with industrialists, un-Constitutional tyranny. Considering the above, Southern States indeed held the right to their own sovereignty.
Aaah -- but then Lincoln played his ace in the hole: THE SLAVERY CARD! (which he was privately indifferent about by his own admission.)
There are obvious parallels between Lincoln and 0blah-blah.
The historical evidence on Pearl Harbor shows clearly that Washington suspected a Japanese attack was coming somewhere and soon, and so all the relevant commanders were sent war-warnings -- from MacArthur in the Philippines to Kimmel & Short in Hawaii. As it turned out, none responded appropriately to these warnings, at least in hind-sight.
Again, of course the winds of war were brewing -- it's war the Japs sent a delegation to DC to help head off the inevitable confrontation. But THE evidence that Japan was indeed going to launch a "surprise" attack on Pearl harbor was *already* known by FDR and his minions. NOT a part of actual "history."
Unfortunately, Pearl would serve as a new "Alamo" or "Remember The Maine!" as America was seen as unquestionably "provoked." Psychological entry into war with Japan would now be far more acceptable.
Support was immediate -- as was hoped in the case of Fort Sumter, the first shot of the war was fired by the *other side*, giving moral and ethic justification for declaring war ((according to Northern Newspapers -- some things still haven't changed.)
But the evidence also shows expectations of attack were the Philippines or Singapore, not Pearl Harbor.
Disinformation and/or misdirection. The Jap code was broken; Pearl Harbor was THE target. It's why only ancient battleships were left in port, and NO carriers. What a stroke of luck, eh?
Point is that blaming Lincoln for Fort Sumter is like saying that Roosevelt "attacked the Japanese" at Pearl Harbor!
In the sense that a provocation was desired in both cases in order to facilitate war, that statement is true. Yet, conflating the Pearl Harbor attack in which thousands of men died with Fort Sumter (two accidental deaths) still does not work at all.
And if that really is your opinion, FRiend, then you've left the world of the sane for a fantasy realm of your own creation.
Wait; You've compared the deaths of thousands at Pearl Harbor in a so-called "sneak-attack" with a full-scale planned bombardment to TWO accidental deaths at Fort Sumter, and *I'M* the one living in La-La Land?
I'd suggest to delve a bit more into historical sources of the Civil War as well as Pearl Harbor.
Aah, the "Linkum tricked us poor, stupid yokels!" defense.
Y'all are beyond pathetic.
The US Customs Service, not the US Army.
HangUpNow: "Lincoln maneuvered the South into technically firing the first shot of a war he knew he needed that was essential in the Northern public eye and gain support that in NO way supported a CW".
But there was no "maneuvering" required!
The Confederacy was eager for war, as their numerous provocations clearly demonstrated.
And with every new provocation -- seizing Federal properties, threatening Union officials, firing on US ships, etc. -- Northern sentiment waxed toward war.
Then would come calming words from politicians, intended to dampen down Northern war-fever -- discussions of peace and reconciliation, etc.
Then secessionists committed yet another outrage and war-fever would rise again in the North.
Finally, the Confederate military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter drove Northern sentiment for war to the boiling point, and most states responded immediately to Lincoln's call for troops.
HangUpNow: "Lincoln and his Northern Industrial Puppetmeisters needed a war waged in order to keep the South subjugated and its tax revenue and agricultural raw material under their thumb."
Nonsense.
Just consider that Civil War brought all exports of Southern cotton and other such products to a 100% end.
How was the North going to pay for its imports without Southern cotton for exports?
Oh, that's right, they found ways, many ways to double and double again Union revenues necessary to pay for the war.
So, it turned out that Southern cotton was not nearly as important to either the Union or the Confederacy as some might wish us to believe.
HangUpNow: "...conflating Fort Sumter with Pearl Harbor doesn't apply AT ALL, other than afterward creating the obvious demand for military manpower and equipment."
But Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor were exactly equivalent in their effects on American public opinion regarding the need for war against those who attacked us.
They were also roughly comparable militarily, considering the relative size of forces involved to total US military.
HangUpNow: "An entire Union Army of 17,000 in 1861?
Let's say I accept that figure.
Lincoln then snapped his fingers in a call for 75,000 volunteers for an army to implicitly invade and submit a South while meeting with his industrialist-profiteers, who would manufacture the usual war machine toys."
That figure of 17,000 (or similar) total US Army troops in early 1861 can be found in any Civil War history, for example, this one.
But in February 1861, before Lincoln was inaugurated, the Confederate Congress called up 100,000 men for their Army, and in May, on declaring war against the United States, called up hundreds of thousands more.
So there was no point during early 1861 when the Union Army was not grossly outnumbered by Confederates on a scale of several to one.
Later on, of course, things changed.
HangUpNow: "Fort Sumter: A significant southern SHIPPING hub for importing/exporting goods, of which the NORTH was a prime beneficiary.
I'd say that was a good reason for it to become a domestic naval/military outpost. Agreed? "
You argue as if Lincoln himself both built and manned Fort Sumter, which is, of course ridiculous.
The project for building Fort Sumter began decades before 1861, as did South Carolina's deeding the property to the United States.
It was built to defend Charleston against potential foreign invasion, and had nothing to do with trade or tariffs.
HangUpNow: "Stop the hysterics.
The two Union troops died NOT in any heroic exchange of combat action, but accidentally during a salute to the U.S. flag when a pile of cartridges were set off by a spark."
No "hysterics", just the facts, sir.
The fact is those six Union troops (out of 85) were killed or wounded in the final act of the Confederate military assault on Fort Sumter.
Those casualties were roughly as significant, relatively, as casualties at Pearl Harbor, and were just as much caused by Confederate actions as were, for example, Hawaiian civilian deaths caused by US firing at Japanese planes.
HangUpNow: "Lincoln refused to meet with Southern reps."
But Lincoln certainly did meet with Southern representatives, from Virginia, and offered them a deal: "a fort for a state", meaning that if Virginia agreed to adjourn its secession convention and remain in the Union, then Lincoln would agree to abandon Fort Sumter.
But Virginians refused Lincoln's offer, and so it was withdrawn.
HangUpNow: "There is nothing constitutional about tolerating a fundamentally unfair, tyrannical feral gummit."
Except there was nothing either "unfair" or "tyrannical" about "feral gummit" in December 1860, when South Carolina declared its secession, and others soon followed.
Those states were perfectly happy with "feral gummit" just so long as it was safely controlled by their Democrat party allies.
It only instantaneously became "unfair" or "tyrannical" when friendly Democrats were defeated in the November 1860 election.
Nothing changed, Democrats were still in control, but the mere prospect of "Ape" Lincoln and his "Black Republicans" taking charge four months in the future drove Fire Eating secessionists to act insanely, unconstitutionally and unlawfully.
HangUpNow: "Abe Lincoln and his Northern elite quickly operated out of the box out of desperation, with barely any electoral support other than northern pockets..."
More rubbish.
In fact, in April Lincoln did nothing regarding Fort Sumter or Fort Pickens that President Buchanan had not already attempted back in January 1861.
His actions were 100% lawful, constitutional and appropriate considering the military situation.
HangUpNow: "Aaah -- but then Lincoln played his ace in the hole: THE SLAVERY CARD! (which he was privately indifferent about by his own admission.)"
Your utter ignorance and distortion of real history is breathtaking here.
In fact, slavery became an issue in the war only long after it was full operation, and then only because slaves themselves made it an issue by escaping their captivity into Union lines.
What was to be done with them?
Should they be returned to their "masters"?
That lead to various executive orders, culminating in Lincoln's emancipation proclamation and, soon after, actions to pass the 13th Amendment.
HangUpNow: "THE evidence that Japan was indeed going to launch a 'surprise' attack on Pearl harbor was *already* known by FDR and his minions.
NOT a part of actual 'history.' "
Sorry, but no, there's no evidence that "FDR knew" a Japanese attack was coming at Pearl Harbor.
What he and Washington certainly knew was an attack was coming somewhere and some time, and so Washington sent out "War Warnings" to all Pacific commanders, from MacArthur in the Philippines to Kimmel & Short in Hawaii.
The fact is that none of those commander -- with the remarkable exception of Admiral Halsey and his Enterprise aircraft carrier -- none of those commanders responded appropriately, as events soon showed.
HangUpNow: "You've compared the deaths of thousands at Pearl Harbor in a so-called 'sneak-attack' with a full-scale planned bombardment to TWO accidental deaths at Fort Sumter, and *I'M* the one living in La-La Land? "
FRiend, you certainly do live in La-La Land if you fail to see the historical parallels between Pearl Harbor and Fort Sumter.
As I've pointed out before, relatively speaking, Fort Sumter was as important in 1861 as was Pearl Harbor in 1941, both in terms of its strategic location and in terms of its size relative to the entire US military of the time.
And total casualties at Fort Sumter (six of 85) were approximately the same percentage as those at Pearl Harbor when compared to the entire US military in Hawaii.
So there is just no legitimate minimizing the importance of the Confederate assault on Fort Sumter as an act and cause of Civil War.