Regardless, Virginia had not seceded. A blockade is an act of war, and by extending the blockade to Virginia even if to counter the activities of some within that state, Lincoln declared war on the state itself as a whole.
Both attacks were attempts by the confederate government to keep what they thought were supply efforts from reaching Sumter.
The confederate government did not even exist when the Star of the West incident happened. Only two states had even seceded, the second one on that same day. As for the Rhoda Shannon, it is simply absurd to describe it as an effort to start a war. A ship got off course, showed up at the wrong port, was mistaken for a hostile yankee ship attempting a sneak landing and, in the spur of the moment, fired upon. At worst the incident was a consequence of mistaken identity and navigation by both the ship and the confederates. To pretend that it was some sort of conspiracy for war by the confederate government is simply absurd.
When the confederates fired directly on Sumter then there was no other choice.
Nonsense. As you have been shown repeatedly, no connection necessitating war as a consequence of Sumter exists, nor have you or anyone else ever shown any. You cannot claim ignorance of this as it has been brought to your attention repeatedly. By continuing to claim that one exists as you still do, you perpetrate an act of blatantly dishonest and deceptive fraud. There is no other explanation for your actions.
Virginia had voted to join the rebellion and took the first hostile action.
A blockade is an act of war, and by extending the blockade to Virginia even if to counter the activities of some within that state, Lincoln declared war on the state itself as a whole.
The blockade was a tool used by the Lincoln Administration to combat the rebellion. He was within his powers as president to do so.
As for the Rhoda Shannon, it is simply absurd to describe it as an effort to start a war. A ship got off course, showed up at the wrong port, was mistaken for a hostile yankee ship attempting a sneak landing and, in the spur of the moment, fired upon.
To consider an unarmed schooner hostile merely because it was flying the Stars and Stripes must mean that the confederacy considered itself at war with the United States. What other reason could there be for reacting to the U.S. flag in that manner? They fired on it without trying to find out what its purpose was. And this was not a single shot across the bow like the Lane fired. This was salvo after salvo directed at the ship and hitting it. The fact that the Shannon was not sunk is more a tribute to the wretched confederate gunnery than through any deliberate attempt. The confederates were itching for a war. Their actions on April 4th showed that. Sumter refused to accomodate them until they fired directly on the fort.
As you have been shown repeatedly, no connection necessitating war as a consequence of Sumter exists, nor have you or anyone else ever shown any.
Your claim would be like saying that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor needn't have resulted in a war. Or if the Cubans bombarded and overran the naval base at Guantanamo Bay then there is no reason for the U.S. to react. Firing on the fort and forcing it to surrender was a deliberate act of war, the third such act on the part of the confederates. Davis attacked and forced the surrender of a U.S. facility. Once he started that then there was no other recourse than to accept the war that he wanted.