I certainly don't mean to defend the Unionist war aims. Only to expose a strain of history I had to deal with in Virginia, about the Confederate war aims. I mean... tarriffs? as a major cause of the war?
I think the presence of slavery made secession more explosive than it would have been in the absence of slavery. First off, slavery was itself war. An independent slavery-based state would require substantial armed forces to patrol its borders and prevent escapes. Second, slavery was unpopular in large areas of the south, some of which sided with the Union. Lincoln couldn't abandon west Virginia. Conversely, Davis couldn't permit a series of pro-Union states from west Virginia through east Tennessee, which would have made it infinitely harder for the Confederacy to patrol its borders. Third, Fire-Eaters had been demanding the expansion of slavery. Sooner or later they would attempt again to seize Kansas, or New Maxico, or even Pennsylvania. Fourth, the secession of some slave states destroyed the 'balance' between the slave states and the 'free' states. If it left only a few slave states, as it did, it could easily lead to civil war within these remaining slave states between factions trying to keep them in the Union and factions trying to shift them into the Confederacy. Isn't that what happened in Missouri? Fifth, if Maryland secedes, it leads to a Fort Sumter crisis over DC.
So instead of Bleeding Kansas, independence would lead to a long bleeding border from the Atlantic to the plains. Given their actions in the previous decade, I'm not sure the Confederates really aimed for independence, so much as to provoke a war - and grossly underestimating the North militarily - expecting to conquer the remainder of the Union.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-03-19 07:36 pm (UTC)I think the presence of slavery made secession more explosive than it would have been in the absence of slavery. First off, slavery was itself war. An independent slavery-based state would require substantial armed forces to patrol its borders and prevent escapes. Second, slavery was unpopular in large areas of the south, some of which sided with the Union. Lincoln couldn't abandon west Virginia. Conversely, Davis couldn't permit a series of pro-Union states from west Virginia through east Tennessee, which would have made it infinitely harder for the Confederacy to patrol its borders. Third, Fire-Eaters had been demanding the expansion of slavery. Sooner or later they would attempt again to seize Kansas, or New Maxico, or even Pennsylvania. Fourth, the secession of some slave states destroyed the 'balance' between the slave states and the 'free' states. If it left only a few slave states, as it did, it could easily lead to civil war within these remaining slave states between factions trying to keep them in the Union and factions trying to shift them into the Confederacy. Isn't that what happened in Missouri? Fifth, if Maryland secedes, it leads to a Fort Sumter crisis over DC.
So instead of Bleeding Kansas, independence would lead to a long bleeding border from the Atlantic to the plains. Given their actions in the previous decade, I'm not sure the Confederates really aimed for independence, so much as to provoke a war - and grossly underestimating the North militarily - expecting to conquer the remainder of the Union.