Their taking of federal government controlled forts and arms was simply a statement of their being their own independent country. After all, the states delegated powers and lands to the fed gov when creating the fed gov and the union, but when withdrawn those delegated rights and powers went back to the states. The Fed gov no longer had rights to have forts in states not under its influence. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people you know.
The Maryland incident reflected the feelings of people of that city, but in no way can be construed as action of confederate government or the state governments.
If they had wanted war so badly, they would have issued an official declaration a lot sooner than they did. Rather it was Lincoln who was eager for war. He rejected all meetings with the Confederate peace ambassadors. He maneuvered the South into firing on Fort Sumter (he sent a messenger to SC to find out if sending supplies and arms to the fort would cause SC to fire on the fort, and the answer was yes...he then sent the arms and supplies in an attempt to provoke a conflict). The confederacy was still open to peace even after Fort Sumter (in which no one was killed btw), but Lincoln would have none of it and opted for war instead.
First, Seward never talked to "Confederate Ambassadors", never.
Seward did talk informally with a US Supreme Court Justice Campbell, from Georgia (according to Lincoln's secretary, Nicolay):
What Seward may or may not have told Campbell is not known, but what is known is that Lincoln had proposed a deal to leaders of the Virginia secession convention: Lincoln would abandon Fort Sumter if, and only if, the Virginia secession convention would adjourn, not return and support the Union cause.
When it became certain that Virginians would do no things, then Lincoln moved back to his previous plan: resupply Forts Sumter and Pickens.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Their taking of federal government controlled forts and arms was simply a statement of their being their own independent country."
No, they were acts of military aggression, rebellion and insurrection against property and officials of the United States government.
Again I'll point to the analogy of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The Fed gov no longer had rights to have forts in states not under its influence.
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people you know."
Total rubbish, and this coming from people whose very first principle was their rights to their human "property".
As for their respecting other people's physical property, well, not so much.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The Maryland incident reflected the feelings of people of that city, but in no way can be construed as action of confederate government or the state governments."
Depends on how you define the word "Confederate".
The Maryland state government, especially its Governor Hicks, were pro-Union, as were the vast majority of Marylanders (approx. 2-1 over Confederates), but there were many pro-Confederates in Maryland, some of whom gathered and assaulted Union troops in Baltimore, killing four, wounding dozens more.
So I would call those people, not just pro-Confederates, but Confederates, in the same sense that people who murder in the name of Islam are rightly considered Islamic.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The confederacy was still open to peace even after Fort Sumter (in which no one was killed btw), but Lincoln would have none of it and opted for war instead."
No, the Confederacy provoked, started, declared and prosecuted war against the United States months and weeks before a single Confederate soldier was killed in battle with any Union force, and before any Union Army invaded a single Confederate state.
Obviously, Confederates believed they had enough "reason" for going to war, but the facts are all their "reasons" were figments of their own overheated imaginations.
A wiser course for the Confederacy would have delayed war as long as possible, imho.