This one doesn't seem to have been asked...

Now, the reasons are fairly obvious why the Confederacy didn't want a Union-held fort guarding Charleston. But it's not so obvious why they chose they attack it at that time. Why push the situation into open hostilities at that point? By April 1861 the Confederates had only just begun setting up their intended country, after all.

What if they just stood back? -If the fort started firing on Southern shipping that'd trigger war. The fort, surrounded as it was, would probably have to surrender just the same, but instead the North looks like the aggressors and the South gets a propaganda victory.

If the fort didn't fire on anyone and the status quo continued (the fort was resupplied etc) the Confederates buy time to set up their country and mobilize. Having a tiny Union enclave may have been inconsistent "with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina", but if they didn't fire on anything it was of no practical consequence. And in the meantime, maybe northern opinion would change in favor of abandoning it? It didn't seem like the South had much to lose in that regard, anyway.

So it seems to me the South would've had everything to gain by stalling the outbreak of hostilities as long as possible.. yet they fired first. Am I missing something? Was there a strategy or was it just hotheadedness and impatience on their part?