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.
Not true. They put the matter to a public referendum held a month later.
The first hostile act was seizing the government arsenal at Harpers Ferry.
Not true. Individuals supporting secession seized the arsenal, but the act of secession was not taken by the state until a month later.
But after Virginia voted to secede and committed the first hostile act by seizing the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry.
Virginia did not vote to secede until May 23rd. The Lincoln's blockade of Virginia was issued on April 27th. April 27th comes before May 23rd, Non-Seq. You cannot change that.
Not plausible at all because that wasn't what happened.
Why not? It seems to be the simplest explanation and, given you have no evidence of the conspiratorial explanations you tend to favor, it would appear that as an explanation it is the most likely.
The Shannon entered the harbor with the Stars and Stripes prominently displayed. The confederate forces fired on it.
Yeah, cause they mistook it for an attempt by The Lincoln to reach Sumter.
The confederate forces must have considered themselves at war with the U.S.
There's no must about it. It was a simple case of mistaken identity for the confederates and mistaken navigation for the ship.
Does that mean that if Cuba shelled and occupied Gtimo then you wouldn't consider the U.S. within its rights to respond?
Your analogy is still faulty. Gitmo is an acknowledged historical agreement between the two nations that has to date been generally honored without dispute. Nor has the U.S. announced any intentions that it be used to impede access to Cuba. The same cannot be said of Sumter, therefore your analogy is false.
I've shown that the south fired on the U.S. on several occasions.
Yet none demonstrates a necessary connection.
The south fired on Sumter in spite of the fact that no hostile action had been taken by the fort.
The south did not fire on the fort until the seige though. They fired on two ships - one that tried to sneak in troops under false pretenses, and the other that was a case of mistaken identity. They finally fired on the fort at the last minute when they knew a hostile fleet was arriving to attempt entry into the harbor.
The south obviously considered themselves at war as early as April 4, otherwise why would they have fired on the Shannon.
Your entire position is a complication of speculative nonsense. They fired on that ship out of a case of mistaken identity and mistaken navigation. I suppose it was unfortunate, but it does not mean anything remotely what you imply it to be.
The south was the aggressor.
The bombardment at Sumter occurred only because The Lincoln instigated it. Had The Lincoln not instigated it and instead attempted a more diplomatic path, that bombardment would not have happened as it did. Had The Lincoln not sent his fleet of warships, the bombardment of Sumter would not have happened as it did. Therefore The Lincoln holds a central claim to being the aggressor at Sumter.
As for the war, it only occurred because The Lincoln marched troops against the southern states to coerce their obedience. Had he not invaded, there would have been no war. Therefore The Lincoln holds claim to being the aggressor in the war itself.