Not so. The vote did not occur until May 23, 1861. Lincoln extended the blockade to Virginia a month earlier on April 27th.
and took the first hostile action.
The first hostility by a government was Lincoln's blockade, an act of war.
The blockade was a tool used by the Lincoln Administration to combat the rebellion. He was within his powers as president to do so.
Call it whatever you like. It is still an act of war and it still occurred before Virginia seceded.
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.
Not at all. A far more plausible explanation is that they saw an unidentified and unexpected ship in the distance heading into their port at a time when they were fearful, with reason, of a yankee attempt to reach Sumter. They apparently believed it to be a sneak attempt to reach the fort, when in fact it was a civilian vessle that had gone off course.
What other reason could there be for reacting to the U.S. flag in that manner?
The one that I described above.
Your claim would be like saying that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor needn't have resulted in a war.
Nonsense. Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack by an expansionist power upon a U.S. Navy sitting without hostility in its own due territory. Sumter was an announced attack upon a hostile military northern installation sitting within the southern borders and instigated to another hostile effort to reach that installation with ships of war for the purpose of making war. Your analogy is simply not comparable.
Once he started that then there was no other recourse than to accept the war that he wanted.
As you have been show, that is simply not so. No necessary connection exists and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise despite being given ample opportunity. I may thus conclude that you are engaging in an act of willful and intended dishonesty when you insist, in violation of the law of causality, that the war was a necessary result of Sumter.
The Virginia legislature voted to secede on April 17th and committed its first hostile act by seizing the Harpers Ferry arsenal on the 18th.
The first hostility by a government was Lincoln's blockade, an act of war.
The first hostile act was seizing the government arsenal at Harpers Ferry.
Call it whatever you like. It is still an act of war and it still occurred before Virginia seceded.
But after Virginia voted to secede and committed the first hostile act by seizing the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry.
Not at all. A far more plausible explanation is that they saw an unidentified and unexpected ship in the distance heading into their port at a time when they were fearful, with reason, of a yankee attempt to reach Sumter. They apparently believed it to be a sneak attempt to reach the fort, when in fact it was a civilian vessle that had gone off course.
Not plausible at all because that wasn't what happened. The Shannon entered the harbor with the Stars and Stripes prominently displayed. The confederate forces fired on it. The confederate forces must have considered themselves at war with the U.S. The confederate forces fired the first shot.
Sumter was an announced attack upon a hostile military northern installation sitting within the southern borders and instigated to another hostile effort to reach that installation with ships of war for the purpose of making war. Your analogy is simply not comparable.
Does that mean that if Cuba shelled and occupied Gtimo then you wouldn't consider the U.S. within its rights to respond?
No necessary connection exists and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise despite being given ample opportunity.
I've shown that the south fired on the U.S. on several occasions. The south fired on Sumter in spite of the fact that no hostile action had been taken by the fort. The south obviously considered themselves at war as early as April 4, otherwise why would they have fired on the Shannon. The south was the aggressor. The south started the war.