All of this is in keeping with the neo-Radical ideal of course, and is about as accurate as the Lost Cause ideal. Two ideals that are thesis driven and ignore the actual evidence.
Neo-Radical ideas? That's a an interesting assertion given that pretty much all mainstream Civil War experts come to far different conclusions than you do regarding a number of Civil War topics...most notably Gen. McClellan and Lee's conduct at Gettysburg.
Third day at Gettysburg - Lee's plan was workable. It was botched by his senior subordinate, Longstreet. He went in half-hearted, and doomed the attack from the start.
I am now putting forth an honest and sincere invitation for you to come to the U.S. and stay in Gettysburg. If you cover airfare, I can get you a place to stay...I grew up near Hanover and my brother now lives in Abbotstown but a hotel is more likely. I'll find us a licensed Battlefield Tour Guide, most likely my old high school history teacher Fred Hawthorne, and we can walk around the entire Battlefield. I have feeling seeing the place first hand may change your mind a bit regarding the workability of Lee's plan.
I recommend mid-April when History Meets the Arts is held. Its a great time to meet Civil War artists and authors. I'll even treat you to a meal at the bullet hole ridden Farnsworth House.
What do the desertion figures of late 1864 have to do with 1861? Have you compared them to the Federal desertion figures?
While it is true that Union deserters (200,000 to 278,000) far outnumber their Confederate (103,000 to 110,000) counter parts, getting a true and accurate count is very difficult. Many units lost large numbers of men as their initial enlistments ran out and some of them were counted as deserters. In the Union Army once the bounty system was enacted there were numerous problems with men deserting and then rejoining a different unit just to collect a new bounty.
Finally, while comparing 1861 desertion rates to to those in 1864 may be flawed, it is important to mention that as early as 1862 Lee was complaining so much about desertion that the Confederate Congress initiated conscription long before the Union did the same.
As to "territorial waters", your argument has no weight whatsoever. The Confederacy was a state when it declared itself a state and took control of its' national territory, no matter what the somantics of the issue and Washington's denialism. Or should we apply your argument to, say, the United States before 1783?
The American Revolution is a far different affair than the American Civil War. The colonies were political and economic subordinates to the Crown and Parliament with no representation in government and no political recourse to address grievances beyond simpering and begging. But to honestly answer your question...no the US did not have "territorial waters" until officially recognized as an independent nation by other nations that were willing to act in such a way that legitimized America's claims to having "territorial waters." Convoluted, yes. Nation States only become such when they are able to enforce their claims completely by themselves or are recognized by other powers that are able to enforce their claims for them.
As for the right to secession it does not exist. The Constitution is silent on the issue but the Articles of Confederation claimed to form a "perpetual Union." The Constitution built upon this claim by asserting "...to form a more perfect Union." Ergo one can argue in a legal sense that the Constitution is also a "perpetual Union." Further more the Constitution has no mechanism to allow for legal secession and while some argue that the 10th Amendment gives states this power, they over look the Federal government's power to suppress rebellion. If the Southern states really were concerned with adhering to the Constitution they would have sued the Federal government or taken the issue of secession to Congress to decide. But they really only cared for the Constitution when used to protect slavery and curtail the power of the Free States.
Regarding who started the war and why, it's too bad you have bought into the anti-Lincoln Lost Cause lies. You seem like a smart person but you cherry pick your sources far too much. Remember that the fighting over slavery had been going on since America's independence. It got worse after the Northwest Ordinance prohibited slavery in the Old Northwest and PA, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois suffered continuous cross-border raids that included home invasions, kidnappings, beatings and even murder throughout the antebellum era. Counter raids by abolitionists only really began after the Compromise of 1850 when a much harsher Fugitive Slave Law came into play. Most Northern States still supported the Southern right to chattle slavery but refused to allow their residents to be dragged out of state without some sort of legal proceeding. Northern states passed personal liberty laws along with laws requiring slave catchers to bring the accused before a judge (writ of Habeas Corpus),, give the accused time to present evidence in their own defense, and if questions arise submit to a jury trial before they were returned to slavery. But slave owners refused all of this and demanded the right to enter free states to retrieve their slaves without the need to present any evidence beyond their word that the accused was an escaped slave. This of course led to many problems that were further enhanced by the Dredd Scott Decision which essentially overturned anti-slavery laws through out the Nation by making it impossible for Free States to prevent slave owners from bringing their slaves into the state with them.
Of course the majority of Americans recognized the inherent "Right of Revolution." It was a founding concept of our nation, but they did not recognize the somewhat different "Right of Rebellion." The South left the nation not because they had been oppressed or denied their rights. The South had dominated America politically since independence and now they saw that their region had been surpassed by the growing population and industry of the North. So they ignored the results of a legitimate and legally binding election and attempted to leave the Union. They in fact broke a contract unilaterally, something that is not legal, and took by force territory that was not theirs to take.
Finally with regards to the actual start of the Civil War the South once again is the antagonist. There was no offer to pay for the seized Federal territories. It was done without provocation and through the us of force. Ironically, if the South had gone to the Supreme Court (which was decidedly pro-Southern) or to Congress before the new session began, there is a good chance they may have been allowed to secede legally. Instead they chose violence and war, which isn't surprising given that they had been doing just that for a long time.
Read...
Border Wars: Fighting over Slavery before the Civil War by Stanely Harrold.
America in 1857: A Nation on the Brink by Kenneth Stampp
The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History edited by Gary W. Gallagher and Alan T. Nolan.
Why the Civil War Came edited by Gabor S. Boritt
The Road to Disunion by William W. Freehling
At the Precipice by Shearer D. Bowman
And the offer to visit is sincere.
Benjamin