elektratig
Sergeant
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Location
- New York City
There are several Sumter threads, so I'm not sure which one to use. I'm arbitrarily picking this one to try to take the discussion in another direction.
I'm no expert on the outbreak of the War, but it seems to me that the decision to fire on the fort was, in retrospect, a colossal blunder from the southern standpoint. Right or wrong, it initiated the War in such as way that many previously passive northerners became aroused and perceived the south to be the aggressor. It initiated the War in such a way that the south ultimately lost it.
What I'd like to discuss and understand is whether the seceding states wouldn't have been better off, in terms of their own goal of independence, if they had simply let the fort be? De facto, they had their own country. The north would deny it, but the north was unlikely to launch an invasion unless the south started armed hostilities first. Wouldn't the confederacy have been better served by the standoff, using the time to establish its own institutions and infrastructure, initiate diplomatic relations with England, etc., and meanwhile present the north with a fait accompli? And if war did break out anyway, let the north appear the aggressor. Perhaps northern blockaders would fire on southern ships engaged in peaceful trade. Whatever. But then the south could portray the north as the aggressor. Why wouldn't that have been the better course for the confederacy to take if independence was its goal?
On a related note, what were the countervailing considerations that led the south to initiate armed hostilities? I've assumed that it was to force Virginia to jump one way or another. Is that right? And if so, was that a gamble worth taking? Were there other considerations that led to the decision?
What I'm trying to avoid is whether the Confederacy had a "right" to the fort, whether the north's occupation of the fort was an outrage or illegal occupation of southern soil, "sovreignty," etc. Assume it did. There were still choices. Rather, I'm trying to understand why the Confederacy chose such a risky (and ultimately disasterous) option when there was another option available that had so many advantages.
Putting it somewhat differently, southern advocates here seem to complain in effect that Lincoln artfully maneuvred the south into firing first by baiting them. Ok, but even accepting that premise, why did the south accept the bait?
Hope I'm making myself clear.
I'm no expert on the outbreak of the War, but it seems to me that the decision to fire on the fort was, in retrospect, a colossal blunder from the southern standpoint. Right or wrong, it initiated the War in such as way that many previously passive northerners became aroused and perceived the south to be the aggressor. It initiated the War in such a way that the south ultimately lost it.
What I'd like to discuss and understand is whether the seceding states wouldn't have been better off, in terms of their own goal of independence, if they had simply let the fort be? De facto, they had their own country. The north would deny it, but the north was unlikely to launch an invasion unless the south started armed hostilities first. Wouldn't the confederacy have been better served by the standoff, using the time to establish its own institutions and infrastructure, initiate diplomatic relations with England, etc., and meanwhile present the north with a fait accompli? And if war did break out anyway, let the north appear the aggressor. Perhaps northern blockaders would fire on southern ships engaged in peaceful trade. Whatever. But then the south could portray the north as the aggressor. Why wouldn't that have been the better course for the confederacy to take if independence was its goal?
On a related note, what were the countervailing considerations that led the south to initiate armed hostilities? I've assumed that it was to force Virginia to jump one way or another. Is that right? And if so, was that a gamble worth taking? Were there other considerations that led to the decision?
What I'm trying to avoid is whether the Confederacy had a "right" to the fort, whether the north's occupation of the fort was an outrage or illegal occupation of southern soil, "sovreignty," etc. Assume it did. There were still choices. Rather, I'm trying to understand why the Confederacy chose such a risky (and ultimately disasterous) option when there was another option available that had so many advantages.
Putting it somewhat differently, southern advocates here seem to complain in effect that Lincoln artfully maneuvred the south into firing first by baiting them. Ok, but even accepting that premise, why did the south accept the bait?
Hope I'm making myself clear.