“Which kind of answers the question why Davis wanted and needed his war, doesn’t it?”
What possible reason would Davis have had to desire a war? The LAST thing the Confederacy wanted was a war, especially a protracted one. The Confederacy’s focus after its creation was to get some foreign governments to recognize it and engage in trade. A war would (and did) make potential partners reluctant to do anything but sit back and see which way the winds of war were blowing. No foreign country would have recognized the Confederacy if it looked like the North would prevail (and the longer the war went on, the more clear it was that the South could not win). Had there not been a war both England and France would have recognized the Confededracy as an independent and sovereign nation, just as they would have recognized a diminished United States as an independent and sovereign nation.
Davis neither wanted nor needed the war. In fact, he thought it would be disastrous to to the Confederacy, no matter which side won. But, once war was thrust on the Confederacy by Lincoln’s intemperate actions, he had no option but to fight.
And, oh, I don’t “have it backwards” about some Confederate officers wanting to march on Washington. They were, as you pointed out, rebuffed by their superiors. As for Davis, he wanted the war over and quickly, and thought that a genuine physical threat to Washington would have caused Lincoln to say “enough is enough” and call off his war, in which case the Confederate troops would have returned to Virginia and both countries would get on with the task of getting used to the new arrangement.
The argument that Lincoln fought the war to restore the Union is accurate on its face, but he didn’t want restoration because he liked the South, he wanted to restore the South to the Union because he wanted the revenues that the South had generated. Hell, he even said he’d happily welcome the Southern states back into the Union, slaves and slavery and all, if it would mean the resumption of trade with Europe, et als, but under the conditions that existed at the time of secession (i.e., a return to the status quo, which were exactly the conditions the Southern states seceded to escape) with all the economic benefits that brought. But, when the Confederacy resisted Lincoln’s militancy and ultimata, he got pissed and wanted to punish the South, and force it back into the Union. He acted just like a petulant child.
The Southern states had far more right and legitimacy to secede than the colonies did in 1776. Yet, somehow I don’t see you waxing indignant about the colonies seceding from Britain like you do about Southern states seceding from the Union. The centralized federalism desired by Lincoln ultimately rendered meaningless the 10th Amendment, and post-war amendments to the Constitution destroyed the Republic (or “benign” federalism) as envisioned and created by the Founding Fathers. The result of the North’s victory in the Civil War was that the individual states, rather than being equal partners with the federal government as was established by the Consitution, became subordinate to and subservient to an all-powerful national government. So, you see, the real tragedy of the Civil War is that in winning, the North destroyed the United states as a republic.
Population. Industry. He was president of a rump state where there were almost as many slaves as free people and which had no industrial base at all. Davis believed that if he could get the other 8 slave states to join his confederacy then he'd have the population he needed to beat the North, and at least a semblance of an industrial base. And what better way to get them off the fence than start a war and force them to choose sides? As it turns out he miscalculated. He only got half the states and he lost his war.
In fact, he thought it would be disastrous to to the Confederacy, no matter which side won.
Then why start one over Sumter? Especially when his own secretary of state pointed out the folly of his actions?
And, oh, I don’t “have it backwards” about some Confederate officers wanting to march on Washington. They were, as you pointed out, rebuffed by their superiors. As for Davis, he wanted the war over and quickly, and thought that a genuine physical threat to Washington would have caused Lincoln to say “enough is enough” and call off his war, in which case the Confederate troops would have returned to Virginia and both countries would get on with the task of getting used to the new arrangement.
Fine. I gave you my source, you give me your's.
The argument that Lincoln fought the war to restore the Union is accurate on its face, but he didn’t want restoration because he liked the South, he wanted to restore the South to the Union because he wanted the revenues that the South had generated.
Nonsense.
Yet, somehow I don’t see you waxing indignant about the colonies seceding from Britain like you do about Southern states seceding from the Union.
Indignation comes when people like you try and paint the Southern cause as something it was not. The American Revolution was not a legal act, and the Founding Father's didn't pretend it was. They knew their actions were a rebellion, that they would have to fight for their independence, and that if they failed then they would be hung as traitors. Southerners, on the other hand, incorrectly insist that their secession was not a rebellion, are indignent that the Union dared to oppose their illegal acts, complain that they lost, and seem amazed when someone points out that all their leaders could have been hung for treason. That's the difference.
The Southern states had far more right and legitimacy to secede than the colonies did in 1776.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!! The colonists had no representation in government, the South was over-represented. The colonists had no say in their destiny, the South had run the government for most of the country's history to date. The election of Lincoln was constitutional and the South threw a hissy-fit and tried to walk out. If you place that on the same level as the causes our Founding Father's rebelled over then you, sir, are insane.
Let's get back to this for a moment. You said, "The centralized federalism desired by Lincoln..." was a stronger reason for rebellion than total lack of any representation in government. Can you specify exactly what it was that Lincoln was espousing that made the Southern actions necessary? I've read the Republican party platform. I've read Lincoln's speeches. And I'm not sure what it is that trumped 'no taxation without representation'.