Fort Sumter was South Carolina territory and after secession they had every right to evict a foreign army. More than that, Sumter was the key to enforcing the import tariff since it controls the harbor. The "attack" against Sumter was really just a demonstration. No one was hurt and the fort surrendered after an honorable interval. The matter should have ended there but Lincoln wanted war and had sent supplies to Sumter after promising not to in order to provoke an incident.
The Perl Harbor analogy is silly. Hawaii was US territory. South Carolina wasn't. Perhaps if the Japanese had driven Commodore Perry out of Edo that would have made a good analogy.
“Fort Sumter was South Carolina territory and after secession they had every right to evict a foreign army.”
So, it is your view that US military installations in foreign nations can be attacked with impunity?