alt.war.civil.usa

"scott s." <75270_3703a@csi.xcom> writes:

> "Ray O'Hara" wrote in
> news:rsudnYo70t0Qxy_anZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@rcn.net:
> >
> > the south fired on ft sumter because they desired war. they felt
> > contempt for the north and thought a war would be a unifying force.
> > they just miscalculated who it would unify more.
> >
>
> I'm not sure that is totally fair. Perhaps better would be the
> deep south fired on ft sumter because they desired war as a way
> to force the upper south and border south to secede. they were
> correct about the former, but wrong on the latter. It was a very
> near thing for the trans-Mississippi south as well.

Here's how I see this.

Firing on Fort Sumter didn't force the upper south to
secede. Considering that the North had determined to destroy the CSA,
Fort Sumter put the upper south to the test: they had to decide
whether to join the North in the suppression of the CSA, or find some
way not to join the North's program.

So the upper south had to decide to do something about the conflict,
but they had a visible alternatives to joining the suppression of the
CSA.

Secession was the most visible alternative, and much of the upper
south chose it, but not Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware.
So, as I see it, Virginia, North Carolina, and the rest were not
forced; they made their choice.


--
Hugh Lawson
hlawson@triad.rr.com