I don’t think it is at all accurate to say that “most of the people in the remaining Union were okay with it.’
Most people in the Union were opposed to secession, but were very divided about how to respond. Almost nobody wanted war, but the question of exactly what should be done was hotly debated.
For obvious reasons, Democratic party newspapers and such were the most likely to oppose “coercion” as a forceful response was called.
Meanwhile, Davis and the CSA was faced with the possibility that seceded states might begin to drift back towards unionism.
However, the major issue dominating the scene between the founding the CSA and Sumter was the unseceded slave states. Everything Lincoln and Davis did was essentially a giant-stakes poker game to see who would win those states.
In the event, they wound up splitting the pot. Which meant that we’d have a long, bloody war rather than a short one.
However, the major issue dominating the scene between the founding the CSA and Sumter was the unseceded slave states. Everything Lincoln and Davis did was essentially a giant-stakes poker game to see who would win those states.
In the event, they wound up splitting the pot. Which meant that we’d have a long, bloody war rather than a short one.
"x" advanced arguments along that line to, and I do not discount these arguments. I think there is a great deal of credibility to them. Yes, I think both sides were playing to the "audience" of the Undecided States, as well as to their own respective constituencies. How much of this resulted in their taking the actions they did is difficult to know.
What we are faced with here in understanding the causes and consequences of the civil war is a macroscopic version of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It is just difficult to know exactly what is true, and when, and how much of an impact it had on creating the convergence of events which occurred.
But as I mentioned in my previous comment, if I am to contemplate who had the better chance of working out all the permutations of the societal factors occurring at that time, and then taking the appropriate action such so as to achieve their desired goal, I would have to give the edge to Lincoln. He was a genius, and had a long history of persuading/manipulating people to get what he wanted.
I recall reading of one of his earlier elections in which it became known to him that his opposition was going to ply potential voters with money and drink, and how Lincoln sent his staff to intercept them, and flip them to his side.
His wit is astounding, and his ability to think on his feet was nothing short of miraculous. He trounced Douglas in the debates by creating for him a paradox.
Had intended to elaborate more, but I have to go. I just got a call. People need my help with something.
Later folks.