Did the Secessionists Want War?

[wausaubob]

They wanted war. They did not think the people in the US were dedicated nationalists, just as they were, that would fight to protect the integrity of the nation. They looked at the US as made up of immigrant mudsills.
Further, no one in the south thought much about how Britain handicapped Napoleon in the age of sail, and how much powerful naval vessels were once they were powered by steam. No one had seen ironclads and gunboats fight. They did not know what was going to happen.

 

[wausaubob]

Both sides were ignorant about was going to happen as soon young men of different immunity levels were crowded together in camps with dirty water and inadequate nutrition.
Every thought it would be over in 6 months, anyway.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

They wanted war. They did not think the people in the US were dedicated nationalists, just as they were, that would fight to protect the integrity of the nation. They looked at the US as made up of immigrant mudsills.
Further, no one in the south thought much about how Britain handicapped Napoleon in the age of sail, and how much powerful naval vessels were once they were powered by steam. No one had seen ironclads and gunboats fight. They did not know what was going to happen.

I would need to see some southern leadership saying they wanted war or preponderance of historical evidence to refute the evidence out there already showing that they wanted peace... namely sending peace envoys north before Summer... Lincoln turned them away... before I can get onboard with that assumption

 

[trice]

this is what i said...they wanted peace...but was preparing for war in post #2


"peace through strength"


being left alone is not the same as wanting to influence others. You can "not" want someone in your house...while breaking into someone elses.

So using armed force against others and planning to conquer other countries equals "peace through strength" and wanting to be "left alone"? That seems to be what you just said -- would you please confirm it?

 

[trice]

I would need to see some southern leadership saying they wanted war or preponderance of historical evidence to refute the evidence out there already showing that they wanted peace... namely sending peace envoys north before Summer... Lincoln turned them away... before I can get onboard with that assumption

There are some examples in this thread already. Here is another example.

John B. Gordon, Fire-Eater and future Confederate general, speaking for the Fire-Eater Yancy at a gathering in Alabama during the Election of 1860:
"Do this and the day is not far distant when the Southern flag shall be omnipotent from the Gulf of Panama to the coast of Delaware; when Cuba shall be ours; when the western breeze shall kiss our flag, as it floats in triumph from the gilded turrets of Mexico's capital; when the well clad, well fed, Southern Christian slave shall beat his tamborine and banjo amid the orange-bowered groves of Central America; and when a pro-slavery legislature shall meet in council in the Halls of Montezuma."

 

[Louisiana Jayhawker]

How does one expect slavery system to expand within new lands to be conquered? Remember they believed slavery would die if a state of constant expanding not allowed immediately. Those western territories, Central American, Cuba and other islands would need a marching army and a navy to conquer. Naturally the North would need an occasional bloody reprimand to mind their own business within their confinement in the North while the Slavocray Empire grows eternally.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

So using armed force against others and planning to conquer other countries equals "peace through strength" and wanting to be "left alone"? That seems to be what you just said -- would you please confirm it?

I didn't say that at all...you did. It's your contention that they were getting arms for a global conquest even though they had about a 4th of the amount of people the northern states had. And as evidence you produce radicals and their radical theories and superimpose the on all southerner s. Did John Brown and his followers represent all northerners?

 

[Patrick Sulley]

There are some examples in this thread already. Here is another example.

John B. Gordon, Fire-Eater and future Confederate general, speaking for the Fire-Eater Yancy at a gathering in Alabama during the Election of 1860:
"Do this and the day is not far distant when the Southern flag shall be omnipotent from the Gulf of Panama to the coast of Delaware; when Cuba shall be ours; when the western breeze shall kiss our flag, as it floats in triumph from the gilded turrets of Mexico's capital; when the well clad, well fed, Southern Christian slave shall beat his tamborine and banjo amid the orange-bowered groves of Central America; and when a pro-slavery legislature shall meet in council in the Halls of Montezuma."

I said the north would invade to collect taxes. You said Lincoln never used the word invasion. I posted his quote. Was that a misrepresentation of his quote? If the leader of the Union lied and misrepresented what he would do, we can assume some radicals in the south either lied or misrepresented what the South would do.

trice said:
John B. Gordon, Fire-Eater

Fire eaterS. That's their idea and I am sure these individuals believed it. But they were not representative of all southern leadership. A few radicals is not preponderance of evidence.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

Fire Eaters secessionists vowed loudly and aggressively that the Northerner would highly likely not fight against an armed slaveholder insurrection in 1861.

There are radical groups or individuals everywhere. Is John Brown a fair representation of all northern state individuals?

 

[wausaubob]

Without new land and continued high demand for involuntary labor, and the ability to buy and sell teenaged boys and girls, the appreciation of slavery through population growth lessens and disappears. Then slavery has to make its dollars with cotton, sugar and tobacco and those commodities were subject to episodes of over production.

 

[John Hartwell]

I know they tried...whether it was strictly before their exit or after...is what I need to look into

After. And then it was too late. The time to negotiate was before seceding. They sent emissaries to talk with the Federal government about the terms under which they would be given everything they wanted. That's not negotiation. That's an Ultimatum.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

It looks like I answer some posts with multiple posts. It's not my intention to "spam". I use my phone and it's not so easy to copy and paste as it is too respond this way. I will make an effort to combine them going forward.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

The time to negotiate was before secedin

I don't disagree...I said I have to look and see if there were any attempt before...I am aware of a "peace delegation" after.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

Without new land and continued high demand for involuntary labor, and the ability to buy and sell teenaged boys and girls, the appreciation of slavery through population growth lessens and disappears

And that is a good thing. I have said all along that slavery was on its way out...and the institution was abhorrent. Debating the side of the South is not arguing for slavery. I have never argued that slavery was good and should have remained...just that there were other issues

 

[John Hartwell]

I don't disagree...I said I have to look and see if there were any attempt before...I am aware of a "peace delegation" after.

The thing to be negotiated was whether and how states could lawfully secede from the Union. But by seceding unilaterally, they showed their unwillingness to negotiate. Personally, I think there were enough people in the North who were fed up with decades of sectional squabbling and desperately wanting to avoid civil war, that the secessionists might well have gotten what they wanted. Their "peace delegation" was sent to arrange the surrender of U.S. authority -- their starting point was recognizing the C.S. government's legitimacy.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

The thing to be negotiated was whether and how states could lawfully secede from the Union. But by seceding unilaterally, they showed their unwillingness to negotiate. Personally, I think there were enough people in the North who were fed up with decades of sectional squabbling and desperately wanting to avoid civil war, that the secessionists might well have gotten what they wanted. Their "peace delegation" was sent to arrange the surrender of U.S. authority -- their starting point was recognizing the C.S. government's legitimacy.

Again, I don't disagree with anything you said. The southern states did quite a lot wrong... including keeping slaves

 

[Joshism]

namely sending peace envoys north before Sumter

It was a good PR movie. Even if you want war, pretend to want peace.

 

[Potomac Pride]

Yet, while he was making these statements, the seceding states, the Confederacy, and Jefferson Davis were actually taking actions that included stealing property in the amount of millions of dollars (buildings, ships, boats, currency, gold and silver bullion, etc.) and using armed force against the United States of America. These are not the actions of a people who just want to be "left alone". They would be universally regarded as acts of war if committed between nations. Please reconcile this.

My initial comment was made in regards to the original topic concerning whether or not the secessionists really wanted war against the Union. From his comments, it appears that Jeff Davis did not really want war. Unfortunately, the situation escalated to the point where he was forced into armed conflict.

 

[wausaubob]

The thing to be negotiated was whether and how states could lawfully secede from the Union. But by seceding unilaterally, they showed their unwillingness to negotiate. Personally, I think there were enough people in the North who were fed up with decades of sectional squabbling and desperately wanting to avoid civil war, that the secessionists might well have gotten what they wanted. Their "peace delegation" was sent to arrange the surrender of U.S. authority -- their starting point was recognizing the C.S. government's legitimacy.

If the new arrangement would have voided the Kansas/Nebraska act, the 1850 compromise, and the Missouri Compromise, and the US would have been given a free hand in the west, the paid labor states might have let the cotton south go. But the level of personal betrayal among Northern Democrats was a wound difficult to salve.

 

[John Hartwell]

Congress had been knuckling under to the slave states' demands for decades, largely due to the (frankly stated) cowardice of the northern Democrats. Even anti-slavery Democrats would not break party loyalty for principal. The south solidly controlled the party, and they knew they would never win a national election without southern support. The so-called 'compromises' of the 1850s (along with the Fugitive Slave law and Dred Scott decision) eroded that, and, by 1860, enough northern Democrats had acquired sufficient backbone to break party ranks. If the southern leadership had acted with more moderation things might have been very different. But reason and moderation were not the cavaliers' forte.