It is more a testimony to the piss-poor pitiful quality of confederate artillery than any sort of care being shown on the part of the rebels to control casualties. IMHO, of course.
But the important factor is that the confederates DID open fire first. The question is why? What was threatened? Even with the reinforcements and supplies could Sumter have threatened the survival of the confederacy? Could the 500 or so men in the fort launched an invasion of South Carolina? Would closing the third largest port in the south caused irreparable economic harm? Had the troops in Sumter issued any threat at all? The answer to all those is no. So why the rush to open fire if not because you wanted a war all along?
ROTFLMAO! Excellent point (such inaccuracy would never happen today though).
"But the important factor is that the confederates DID open fire first. The question is why? What was threatened?"
Considering that the South had seceded and reclaimed their sovereignity, the Fort we are discussing was hundreds of miles into the territory now claimed by the South. And of course they fired first. Why? Consider Pearl Harbor in 1941. Would you wait until a foreign government sent planes smashing into your ships and destroyed the bulk of your fleet before firing? Was there a legitimate reason for hundreds of Japanese planes to be flying over US territory? If we had sufficient warning of the attack, would it have been wrong for the US to defend it's property from attack before the targets were reached? If a Iraqi plane is headed toward you, or towards American soil, with an unknown cargo, do we have to wait until it drops the bomb before it's ok to shoot it down? Would it have been wrong for the USS Cole to destroy the attacking boat before it hit?
"Even with the reinforcements and supplies could Sumter have threatened the survival of the confederacy? Could the 500 or so men in the fort launched an invasion of South Carolina? Would closing the third largest port in the south caused irreparable economic harm? Had the troops in Sumter issued any threat at all? The answer to all those is no. "
With our knowledge after the fact, I might tend to agree with you. The question is did the South know at the time, and would you allow a FORT to be restocked and retained by a foreign force?
I'm not praising the actions of either side, I think that both sides made mistakes. FWIW, that's why I find it incredible that Lincoln was so willing to force the South to remain, and that so many lives would be lost. Not just Southern, but Northern as well. Would the Union have self-destructed if the South had been allowed to leave? No. Would the South have ever returned to the Union? Possibly. Would the South have been a enemy of the North? I doubt it.
"So why the rush to open fire if not because you wanted a war all along?"
Why the rush to stock the fort, if not to start the war?
Let's just imagine you in south carolina's shoes for a seconde...you just declared your independence as a state with a new government which you elected, yet the army of the old government INSISTS without compromise that it is still entitled to camp out with an arsenal on a piece of your land smack dab in the middle of the entrance to your biggest seaport. Further, when you ask him kindly to leave, he responds by saying "make me" and calls for a fleet of warships to reinforce him. Tell me then, do you feel threatened? Do you want the old army's presence there to continue?
Even with the reinforcements and supplies could Sumter have threatened the survival of the confederacy?
Probably not, but it certainly could have severely impeded commerce into and out of charleston, one of the main ports in the confederacy and the single main port of south carolina. That aside, it all comes down to the fort's proper use, owner, and function. Any way you look at it, it's on south carolina's land. It guard's south carolina's seaport. It is of absolutely no use whatsoever to the northern government for any purpose other than the less than honorable motive of impeding commerce into a port of another.
Simply put, the north had no business being in Sumter unless that business was to cause trouble with the south.
Could the 500 or so men in the fort launched an invasion of South Carolina?
Most likely not, but they could have severely impeded commerce into the state, not to mention the fact that they had no other business or interest in being there other than to be a force that is capable of impeding that commerce.
Would closing the third largest port in the south caused irreparable economic harm?
It certainly wouldn't help.
Had the troops in Sumter issued any threat at all?
Lincoln sure did. He did so in the form of ordering 3 warships to "provision" the fort after repeated and perfectly peaceful requests by the southerners to the fort's occupants that they leave the garrison, and in doing so be given safe passage home without interference. In fact, they were even given safe passage home without interference after the battle!
The answer to all those is no.
Not exactly, and to suggest otherwise is to grossly oversimplify the situation. So why the rush to open fire if not because you wanted a war all along?
Because (1) peaceful requests for the turnover of the fort had been made since the preceding december, (2) occupants of the fort had repeatedly indicated that they would not leave without a fight as they had been ordered to stay put, (3) occupants of the fort had no business being there in the first place other than to retain the capability to cause trouble for southern commerce, and (4) Lincoln had dispatched three warships to reprovision the fort with increase ammunition and supplies, indicating preparation for future and increased military capabilities.
Or, if you wish, we can make an analogy. Suppose you had recently bought yourself a new house, yet when you moved in, the previous occupants were still residing in a van parked in your driveway. Now suppose that the van threatened to completely shut off your driveway from any access by you and its occupants had indicated that they would bash the hood in on any car you tried to park in the vicinity of their van. Further, lets suppose that the van's occupants were completely unwilling to leave despite the fact that you had made several polite requests of them and even invited them in for dinner on occasion. And to make matters worse, what if you knew that they were storing ammunition in the van and, on top of that, a bunch of redneck friends were driving in from out of state with more ammo with the intent of joining them on your driveway. Tell me, if faced with this scenario, would you take action to get the van moved?
If you are sane, probably. You would probably call the police to come tow them. But what if we suppose that this hypothetical situation exists in a state where there are no police, and all such matters are left entirely to you to enforce. See where I'm getting at?
The people in the van have no place being in your driveway in the first place. Similarly, the yankees in fort sumter had no place being in the middle of charleston south carolina's harbor in the first place. Additionally, the presence of both is at least an inconvenience if not a greater threat, and it also happens to be a presence that is unwilling to remove itself and in fact is staked in ready to use force to impede any who try to make it leave. And on top of that, there are reenforcements coming to them soon to help them stake it out and fight, plus no authority other than yourself to make them leave. So what do you do? You make them leave!
That is exactly what South Carolina did, and for that I can in no way fault them.