To establish relations between countries, first and foremost, to the exclusion of all else. In other words, either Lincoln agreed to recognize the legality of the southern acts of secession or there was no reason for the commissioners to be there, because all other matters were secondary. Well, why should Lincoln have agreed to an ultimatum like that?
The desire of the Confederate states to resolve the question of their separation without a single drop of shed blood is rather evident in the above letters, carried by the Commissioners to Washington City, would you not agree? In the event that it's not immediately clear, please refer to my highlights of the same. The first letter makes it abundantly clear that the commissioners were sent to resolve ALL QUESTIONS surrounding the secession, including (as Jefferson Davis himself indicated in his book) the settlement of all debts owed to the United States.
I confess that nothing interests me less in what you think the Davis regime could have done or would have done or might have done. And I've no doubt that my questioning the sincerity of the offers or speculating on what Lincoln should have done or could have done or would have done would bore you to tears as well. What I am interested in is that if, in your world, states can come and go from the Union at will then what are they obligated to do. They have walked out, are no longer part of the Union, regardless of the wishes and desires and interest of the remaining states. So why should they be obligated to anything to do with the country that they just walked away from? Why should they care about debt or treaty obligations or the rights of the states remaining with the country they left? In your scenario they are obligated to do nothing. And the remaining states have no recourse whatsoever except the ultimate one of war. And how can you believe that the founding fathers would agree to that?
And I'll close by asking again, if the States acceded to the Federal Constitution individually in their own sovereign capacity, why should they be denied the right to withdraw from the same? At what point does the Federal government become the aggressive overlord, operating above and beyond the consent of the Governed?
The states can withdraw in the same manner as they join, with the consent of the other states. That is the only way to ensure that the rights of all the parties involved are protected because all questions of potential disagreement are settled to the satisfaction of all parties before the split. For states to unilaterally secede with no requirement that they settle matters of potential dispute, like debt or treaty obligations or matters like access to the Mississppi or other transportation links, means that the remaining states have no rights, they are due no protections, and their issues don't matter. And I would defy you to point out a single one of the founders that believed that.
Please re-read both letters again in their entirety, rather than inferring what you wish from a limited citation. If you have any familiarity at all with Southern writings of the era, you'll know that it's common to write in a fairly indirect, though extremely polite, manner. It's clear from the highlights made in both of the letters I had provided that the Confederate government sought nothing more than to resolve the matter peacefully. It was not a matter of ultimatum, but one that could possibly have been avoided should Washington have taken the time to receive and hear the gentlemen dispatched for that purpose.
What I am interested in is that if, in your world, states can come and go from the Union at will then what are they obligated to do. They have walked out, are no longer part of the Union, regardless of the wishes and desires and interest of the remaining states. So why should they be obligated to anything to do with the country that they just walked away from? Why should they care about debt or treaty obligations or the rights of the states remaining with the country they left? In your scenario they are obligated to do nothing. And the remaining states have no recourse whatsoever except the ultimate one of war. And how can you believe that the founding fathers would agree to that?
I have answered this question as eloquently as I can in my previous posts, including the matter of settling differences via civilized war. Please look at 343 again to review my reply—particularly about the difference between war to redress grievances such as debt incurred and uncivilized war for the sole purpose of conquest. All of the evidence I have seen related to the time period clearly indicates to me that the latter is the path chosen by the North—the path of subversion and subordination.
There are also a number of other questions and assertions I've made towards you that have yet to elicit a response from you. I would be greatly interested in hearing your thoughts on these issues, most prominently on the topic of your previous claim that the States have no inherent Sovereignty. If you get a chance, could you go back and take a look at these questions in a little bit more detail, and perhaps honor your humble servant with a response to some of them, by any chance?
I look forward to hearing more from you,
Regards,
~dt~