But a negotiated surrender, which could have included hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation for slave-holders, other terms and conditions to be determined.
By refusing to negotiate in February 1865, Jefferson Davis dragged the war out just two more months, before being forced to accept Unconditional Surrender for his armies, arrest and imprisonment for himself, and the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments for former slaves.
If that is not a definition of Davis' pure insanity, I don't know what would be.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "If slavery was all they were clinging to they would have taken the deal, seeing as they were almost defeated as it was."
But there is no rational explanation for Jefferson Davis' behavior in 1865.
Instead, we must chalk it up to his pure insanity, and leave it go with that.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "There were many (like Lee and Cleburn) who wanted to institute that years before, however there were just enough of those stubborn stalwarts in Congress to block the issue until it was too late. "
Lead by the most "stubborn stalwart" of them all, the Confederacy's effective dictator on such matters: Jefferson Davis.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Did you know Lincoln was also against early attempts to recruit blacks?
He also waited until the North had lost a good number of battles before he finally changed stance. "
No, in fact, early in 1861, runaway slaves began crossing into Union Army areas, and after a short delay, were immediately settled, provisioned and put to paid-work for the Union.
But their use as volunteer-soldiers took a little longer, not because Lincoln opposed blacks in principle (as, for example, Jefferson Davis did), but rather because of Lincoln's concern for the response of slave-holders in Union states of Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware & Missouri.
In July 1862 Congress authorized US Army colored troops and full recruitment began in January 1863, resulting eventually in 173 colored regiments of about 180,000 troops -- 10% of the US Army.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "You underestimate the negative effect of John Brown.
He had been funded by Northerners, and after his death many Northern abolitionists called him a martyr."
No, I've underestimated nothing, simply pointed out that as a propaganda weapon of Southern Fire Eaters, Brown's raid and Northern sympathies for Brown were both highly exaggerated.
In fact, as I've pointed out, Brown was quickly captured, tried & hanged, receiving widespread condemnation throughout the North to the point where five of his "secret six" supporters fled to avoid prison themselves.
So the issue, as in everything else, was not Brown and the North, but rather highly inflamed anti-Union Fire Eater sentiments in the South.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Have you ever heard the song "John Brown's Body"? It was very popular up North:"
Sure, that tune itself was an old negro-spiritual popularly sung both South & North for many years before the war.
But the new words "John Brown's Body" weren't applied until after the Confederacy provoked, started, declared and waged war against the United States.
Then it became a Union Army marching song, before its tune was put to much better use in 1862, by Julia Ward Howe as the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
So, as in everything else, Deep South slave-holders inspired opposition to themselves, not the other way around.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "This kind of stuff made many in the South feel they weren't wanted or respected in the Union."
No, what you're really talking about here is pro-Confederate revisionist history, making the effect (the song: "John Brown's Body") into the cause (Deep South secession and war against the United States).
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The Democrat party had always been a national party...this was the first electinon that that the Democrats had fielded a Northern and a southern candiate, however their platforms remained very similar."
FRiend, you crowd more lies & nonsense into a single sentence than even most pro-Confederate propagandists, and that's saying a lot.
So let's start here:
The two US political parties:
Northern pro-Constitution Federalist Party
In 1788 the pro-Constitution party was called Federalists, the anti-Constitution party anti-Federalists.
In 1788 the Federalists included such Southern luminaries as George Washington and James Madison, but within a few years, anti-Federalist Southerners became Jefferson & Madison's "Democratic-Republican" party in opposition to Northern Federalists.
The dominant Southern anti-Federalist, Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican, Jacksonian Democrats' party:
Jefferson's Southern-based party nearly always had Northern allies, and that is one reason it dominated US Federal Government from at least the election of 1800 until secession & Confederacy in 1861.
In 1828 it changed names to Jacksonian Democrats, but remained the Southern-dominated alliance with some Northerners, they known derisively as "Doughfaces".
Before 1860 the Southern-dominated Democrat party elected all but two Presidents (Harrison & Taylor both Southern slave-holders), dominated Congress and the Supreme Court and so effectively protected slavery against all comers.
In the mean time:
The minority Northern Federalist, National Republican, Whig Republican opposition party:
After Jefferson's victory in the 1800 election, Northern Federalists-Whigs became strictly the opposition party, seldom rising to majorities and even then, as with Harrison & Taylor, only by adopting slave-holders as their standard bearers.
One reason for Federalist-Whig permanent minority status was that many Northerners often voted for the Southern Democrat party.
Yes, there were also some Southerners who voted for the Northern Federalist-Whigs, but unlike the Northern Doughfaces, never enough to carry a Southern state for the Northern candidate.
Here, for example, is the 1828 election between Southerner Andrew Jackson and Northern President John Quincy Adams -- shown by county.
Note that some Southern counties did vote for Adams:
So what happened in the 1850s?:
By the mid-1850s the international issue of slavery's abolition had become important in US politics, beginning with splitting the Northern & Southern Whigs.
Northern Whigs became Republicans.
Southern Whigs became American, Know-Nothings and in 1860, John Bell's Constitutional Unionists.
The national Democrat party remained united and victorious until the 1860 election, when it split between Northern Douglas Democrats and Southern Breckenridge Democrats.
The 1860 split was over the issue of slavery in the territories, which Douglas said should be a local issue and Southern Democrats wanted controlled in Washington.
Point is: of the two national parties which became four regional parties, only one in 1860, the Southern Democrats was a hot-bed of secessionism.
The other three favored Union.
So, Unionism was the national consensus in 1860.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "I have to laugh at how you keep downplaying the tariffs."
I have to laugh at how you keep exaggerating the influence of tariffs.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The tariff issue alone was enough to make South Carolina seceed in the 1830s."
But they didn't, because no other state supported their ridiculous rebellion.
All states then, and later, well understood that tariffs were just national "politics as usual" -- you win some, you lose some, you come back to politic another day.
Tariffs were never an issue worth seceding over.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The tariffs benefitted the North at the expense of the South and the North had used the slavery issue many times to get the tariffs they wanted.
Northern politicians were ever ready to sacrifice whatever anti-slavery sentiments they had for the sake of a tariff deal."
As they say, "politics ain't bean bags", it's a contact sport in which, dare I say it, the art of the deal is, well, a big deal.
The Southern Slave-Power was called that for a reason.
Thomas Jefferson was called "the Black President" for a reason.
The reason was the Constitution's 3/5 of slaves rule, which gave Southern states vastly more representation than their white populations alone justified.
The result was Southern Slave-Power domination in Congress, the Presidency and Supreme Court.
That Northern opposition was able to secure occasional compromises on slavery (i.e., 1850 Compromise) in no way challenged the "peculiar institution" in the South.
But tariffs went up & down every few years, depending on majorities and alliances in Congress.
Important to remember: it was not only Southerners who wanted lower tariffs and it was not only Northerners who wanted higher tariff protections.
There were numbers of both in Congress who voted the other way.
And all claims that only Southerners paid tariffs is ridiculous propaganda.
Tariffs were paid at the goods' ports of import of which circa 90% were not Southern.
And not all imports went to Southerners, indeed, arguably far less than 1/3 of imports went to Southern buyers, based on relative populations & incomes.
Bottom line: tariffs were always "politics as usual", never a cause for serious threats of secession.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Southern congressmen claimed to have won over Pennsylvania's delegation by promising to repay a vote for the Compromise with "adjustments" in the tariff rates.
At the same time, the Pennsylvania legislature voted to repeal laws that handicapped efforts to recapture fugitive slaves."
Like I said, "politics as usual" 1850 style.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Robert Barnwell Rhett railed against the then-pending Morrill Tariff before the South Carolina convention.
Rhett included a lengthy attack on tariffs in his address, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance."
South Carolina's Ordnance of Secession is dated December 20, 1860.
It gives no reasons.
South Carolina's "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" is dated December 24, 1860.
It explains their reasons as protecting slavery, and does not mention taxes or tariffs -- not once.
Your quote from Rhett may have something to do with something else, but not with South Carolina's vote or reasons for secession.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Also, this tariff the North was pushing wasn't small.
It increased the effective rate collected on dutiable imports by approximately 70%.
This is why when the North passed it in a knee-jerk fashion after the South had left..."
No, the original proposal (Morrill Tariff) was a very modest increase from a near-low of 15%.
This was defeated by Southern Senators in 1860.
In 1861, after secessionists walked out of Congress, then a higher increase was passed, and soon after that too was increased, and increased again to help pay for Civil War.
The Confederacy set their import tax rate at the pre-Morrill rate of 15%.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...northern businesses began to lament about their loss of business.
The fact that the northern economy was nearing collapse forced Lincoln to act quick in order force the South back into the union."
Rubbish, propaganda & nonsense.
Northern businesses suffered nothing in the months before Fort Sumter (April 1861), and afterwards soon adjusted to demands of the Civil War economy.
More important, Lincoln himself was not motivated primarily by economic interests, but rather by Constitutional, legal, moral and political ideas first.
First and foremost Lincoln valued his Oath of Office, to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.
This did not allow Lincoln to recognize Deep South declarations of secession, except or until, those were approved by Congress, which of course, they never were.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...note that they talk about the failure of Northern states to comply with fugitives slave laws (as stipulated by the constitution) and also the slavery in the territories issue (you know, the issues that they actually argued about)."
Like I said, and you just confirmed: there was only one real reason for secession, and that was to preserve, protect and defend their "peculiar institution" of slavery.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The election of a purely sectional candidate was the final nail in the coffin of this division."
That election was engineered by Deep South Fire-Eaters who split up their own national Democrat party over slavery and their wish to use "Black Republicans" as excuse & motivation for declaring secession.