[rustbucket]

If the South were determined to secede peacefully, the country might have been spared a war. But the South wanted war, and expected to win it. What Jefferson Davis, like Abraham Lincoln did not want was to be seen as the aggressor. But since the Confederacy was by nature aggressive, it couldn't stop itself from war-like actions -- see my post on the many seizures of Federal forts & ships.

I disagree. The South wanted to secede peacefully. The taking of forts was to insure that they could if they faced an aggressive North that did not want them to secede.

I believe that Lincoln intentionally provoked war. By refusing to peacefully negotiate and saying he would take the South's revenue by interdicting ships coming into southern ports, he chose a path to war.

I have said on these threads that I think the South made a mistake in firing on Sumter. They had offered to supply Sumter with food early on. Anderson turned them down. They kept permitting him to buy fresh meet, etc., at the Charleston markets right up until word of Lincoln's battle fleet came in early April. Had Anderson accepted the food offer, there would be no need for a relief fleet.

I once posted a April 12, 1861, New York Times piece [Link to post] that wondered why on earth the South had not attacked Fort Sumter before then. The Times could not see that the South was holding out to the last moment trying to negotiate peace.

[BroJoeK]

"The South wanted to secede peacefully. The taking of forts was to insure that they could if they faced an aggressive North that did not want them to secede."

The South wanted a war of independence, which it thought it could win. The taking of dozens of Federal properties, including forts, arsenals, customs houses and ships, was intended to provoke the North into a war of aggression -- an offer which President Buchanan politely refused.

But he did attempt reinforcing two Federal forts -- Sumter and Pickens, the latter successfully.

On the morning of April 12, 1861, Major Anderson in Fort Sumter was ordered to surrender. He offered to surrender on April 15, but the South couldn't wait even three more days. They opened fire at 4:30 AM starting the war they so eagerly wanted.

[rockrr]

I disagree. The South wanted to secede peacefully. The taking of forts was to insure that they could if they faced an aggressive North that did not want them to secede.

That doesn't even make sense. If "The South" had wanted to secede peacefully they would have negotiated such instead of brashly acting like petulant teenagers who deal with a squabble by punching their father in the nose and stealing their car.

I believe that Lincoln intentionally provoked war. By refusing to peacefully negotiate and saying he would take the South's revenue by interdicting ships coming into southern ports, he chose a path to war.

What, by getting elected? The south had set its war plans into motion by the time Lincoln assumed office. This would be akin to negotiating the barn door after the horses have fled. The south wanted no part of "negotiations for peace" - they were only interested in terms of surrender.

I have said on these threads that I think the South made a mistake in firing on Sumter.

On this I would agree with you.

They had offered to supply Sumter with food early on. Anderson turned them down. They kept permitting him to buy fresh meet, etc., at the Charleston markets right up until word of Lincoln's battle fleet came in early April. Had Anderson accepted the food offer, there would be no need for a relief fleet.

You have a funny sense of cause and effect. "They" had no business interfering with the official business of the US government regarding the disposition of Ft. Sumter. They instigated the conflict and reaped the reward.