Replies

Good argument. I'm inclined to think though, that it was the course of events that determined the outcome. A more prudent, less confrontational South could have gotten what it wanted inside or outside the Union. The first mistake of the fireeaters was breaking up the Democratic party and burning their bridges to Northern sympathizers. Their second was not pursuing their ideas within the Constitutional framework through amendments, either to guarantee their interests in the Union or to dissove it by general consent. The third and crucial mistake was in firing on Sumter and touching off a reaction that would overwhelm them. So long as there was a stand-off Northerners and other Unionists were not inclined to use force to keep the rebel states in the union. Once the shooting started, constitutional arguments would be settled by the gun.

It's highly probable that disunion might eventually have meant war over the border states and Western territories, but it wasn't inevitable. In any case, a later conflict over more limited questions would not have been so destructive. Davis gambled either that using force would not bring war or that a war in Spring 1861 would bring more advantages to his side than an uneasy peace or a later conflict. This was not a winning gamble.

Uh...re: your #62, Northern Sympathizers were jailed, censored, and driven underground by a totalitarian regime.