PDA

View Full Version : When Was the American Civil War a Done Deal?



Shek
13 Nov 09,, 02:21
Lee surrendered on 9 April 1865.
Johnston surrendered on 3 May 1865.

However, it was clear before then that it was only a matter of time until the North would win. At what point was it inevitable that the South could not win?

I'd date it to the re-election of Lincoln. Once he was secure in office with a veto proof GOP majority, there was nothing that was going to stop Grant and Sherman. Your thoughts?

Stitch
13 Nov 09,, 02:36
I don't know nearly as much as you guys do about the American Civil War, but I would have to say the turning point came with the Battle Of Gettysburg in 1863; after that, the result of the War was inevitable, with the change of momentum from the South to the North, and the Union's continually increasing output of mean & materiel. It was just a matter of time from then on for the North to defeat the South. I believe the pivotal moment was the Battle Of Gettysburg; if the North had been defeated, I think a negotiated peace would have been possible for the South after that, with a possible partition of the country resulting from the negotiations.

Albany Rifles
13 Nov 09,, 02:58
I would say on 1 SEP 1864. Atlanta fell in the West on that day. It was the Fall of Atlanta which provided the key to Lincoln's election success. Mobile fell to Farragut's forces as part of the battles of Mobile Bay.

In the East Grant had Lee pinned into the Petersburg-Richmond line. Lee was decisively engaged and had no ability to maneuver on higher than the tactical level. 2 of the 4 routes into Petersburg were cut and the Army of the Potomoac had weathered the near crippling loss of units having their enlistments run out. After August it only grew stronger with fresh units.

In the Shenandoah Valley Jubal Early is about to be run to ground by Phil Sheridan. In 7 weeks his Early's army would cease to exist.

In the Trans Mississippi Sterling Price's Missouri Raid is coming to its ignominious conclusion.


Oh, the Democrats nominate McClellan...just about assuring Lincoln reelection!!

Blue
13 Nov 09,, 04:17
I didn't know it was over......:biggrin:;)

Tarek Morgen
13 Nov 09,, 04:24
Despite being a civil war, i think it can be said that it was a "clausewitzian war" and if I remember him right a war is one won archiving one of the following three things (or a mix of them)

Destroying the enemy completly
Destroying his ability to fight
Destroying his will to fight

I believe it is safe to say that the South could not have destroyed the North, and I see it as rather unlikely that they would have been able to take away the Norths abilty to continue fighting due its larger manpower and economy. So the only hope left for them would have been to take away the North will to keep fighting.

Shek
13 Nov 09,, 04:29
I didn't know it was over......:biggrin:;)

How deep in the woods are you? :eek:

On a serious note, are you near Rolla? One of my former colleagues just got of the Army and is running for a House seat near there: Home | Tommy Sowers for Congress (http://www.sowersforcongress.com/)

Blue
13 Nov 09,, 05:05
How deep in the woods are you? :eek:

On a serious note, are you near Rolla? One of my former colleagues just got of the Army and is running for a House seat near there: Home | Tommy Sowers for Congress (http://www.sowersforcongress.com/) I'm farther South and West of there. Joplin actually. The prior was just some southern humor. Lots of folks here still contend jokingly that it was never over, hostilities where just suspended till we could recover.:tongue:

Sorry to not wish a brother success, but given his current affiliation, I have to say the last thing this state needs is another democrat in office.:frown:

Shek
13 Nov 09,, 12:48
I'm farther South and West of there. Joplin actually. The prior was just some southern humor. Lots of folks here still contend jokingly that it was never over, hostilities where just suspended till we could recover.:tongue:

I was tracking that you were joking :)


Sorry to not wish a brother success, but given his current affiliation, I have to say the last thing this state needs is another democrat in office.:frown:

No problems there - figured you might be interested in checking out how OIF/OEF vets are getting involved in the political landscape, even if they're of a different stripe than you. I'm happy to keep track of how he's doing, and while I haven't checked out his platform, I know that as an economist I'm opposed to his rhetoric on economic develop (although as an economist, I completely understand his incentives and why he's taking his positions in that particular policy area). That being said, I know that he's an upstanding guy and so his positions will be the result of his convictions and not that of some special interest.

JAD_333
13 Nov 09,, 14:12
I would say on 1 SEP 1864. Atlanta fell in the West on that day. It was the Fall of Atlanta which provided the key to Lincoln's election success. Mobile fell to Farragut's forces as part of the battles of Mobile Bay.

In the East Grant had Lee pinned into the Petersburg-Richmond line. Lee was decisively engaged and had no ability to maneuver on higher than the tactical level. 2 of the 4 routes into Petersburg were cut and the Army of the Potomoac had weathered the near crippling loss of units having their enlistments run out. After August it only grew stronger with fresh units.

In the Shenandoah Valley Jubal Early is about to be run to ground by Phil Sheridan. In 7 weeks his Early's army would cease to exist.


I have to agree that these events made the inevitability clear for all to see, but with the benefit of hindsight I'd say it was inevitable from the beginning given the Union's advantage in manpower and ability to churn out war material. It was a matter of having a president who would stay the course, which the Union had, and finding competent military leaders who would press the issue.

rj1
13 Nov 09,, 14:44
I didn't know it was over......:biggrin:;)

A bumper sticker I've seen that I've loved.

North 1, South 0
Halftime

:))

Blue
13 Nov 09,, 15:36
I was tracking that you were joking :) well......tongue in cheek anyway.:biggrin:




No problems there - figured you might be interested in checking out how OIF/OEF vets are getting involved in the political landscape, even if they're of a different stripe than you. Thing is, he will probably win. Former SFs and spec op types have a record at being successful when they set a goal.
I'm happy to keep track of how he's doing, and while I haven't checked out his platform, I know that as an economist I'm opposed to his rhetoric on economic develop (although as an economist, I completely understand his incentives and why he's taking his positions in that particular policy area). That being said, I know that he's an upstanding guy and so his positions will be the result of his convictions and not that of some special interest. I perused the website but didn't find thing anything outlining any specific policy goals. I don't think all Dems are bad though. Most of the good ones I think are trying to save the party from the hard lefties or just don't know that they are really Libertarians.

Interestingly enough, my brother and I are the only Libertarians in our family. Including step-siblings, step-parents, cousins, uncles, etc. About 70 or 80 people. Three are Republicans and the rest, including my parents, are Democrats. Out of all of them, only one voted for Obama, and the majority have voted Rep for the last three elections. ALL however are pro-gun, conservative authoritarian, christian righties. Go figure. I call it a political identity crisis.:rolleyes:

Blue
13 Nov 09,, 15:36
A bumper sticker I've seen that I've loved.

North 1, South 0
Halftime

:))

:)):))

astralis
13 Nov 09,, 15:42
JAD,


I'd say it was inevitable from the beginning given the Union's advantage in manpower and ability to churn out war material. It was a matter of having a president who would stay the course, which the Union had, and finding competent military leaders who would press the issue.


but given the constraints of time, this wasn't an inevitability. if lee had decisively defeated mcclellan at antietam, the british and french were ready to recognize the confederacy. with their recognition and the breaking of the union blockade, it would have been far harder to take down the south.

astralis
13 Nov 09,, 15:53
i agree with AR on 1 Sep 1864. as late as july 1864, the union was going through some pretty bad war exhaustion, with both armies seemingly stalled.

the biggest threat wasn't even the nomination of McClellan (he wanted to continue prosecuting the war, too), but the nomination of Seymour. had the copperhead beat both McClellan and Lincoln, the south would either have won its independence...or the pissed off Union armies would have been VERY tempted to go march on Washington.

Albany Rifles
13 Nov 09,, 16:19
I looked at your earlier comments about the war not being over in Missouri but that you don't take it too hard.

I was going to add "...except for when it comes to Kansas." to your statement. I know there are no statues to Lane or Blunt in your state! I did a tour along the Kansas - Missouri Border a year ago and it was obvious that the feelings still run deep and hard between the two areas. I am sure if we had Kansas Bear's views he would talk of the raids on Lawrence, etc.

Jayhawkers, Bushwackers, Partisan Rangers, Regulators. There was your hard war.

JAD & Astralis: Ref Antietam. A Confederate victory at Antietam would have prevented Lincoln from issuing the EP. That would have had enormous implications because then the European poweres could feel free to recognize the Confederacy with no fear of political backlash from their respective populaces.

Blue
13 Nov 09,, 16:55
I looked at your earlier comments about the war not being over in Missouri but that you don't take it too hard. Well....I have bigger things to worry about, but I must admit I am compassionate about it as I had forefathers the victims of Redlegs and abolitionists.


I was going to add "...except for when it comes to Kansas." to your statement. I know there are no statues to Lane or Blunt in your state! I did a tour along the Kansas - Missouri Border a year ago and it was obvious that the feelings still run deep and hard between the two areas. I am sure if we had Kansas Bear's views he would talk of the raids on Lawrence, etc.

Jayhawkers, Bushwackers, Partisan Rangers, Regulators. There was your hard war.[/QUOTE] Bleeding Kansas was a mess that spilled right into my area. I was born in Joplin, but raised in Riverton, KS. We don't really distinguish the area we live in by state borders and it is readily identified nowadays by locals as "the fourstates". Our first and still existing TV station is KOAM (Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas. Missouri).

Missouri and Kansas certainly had thier differences then and it was defined by those geographical borders.

Quantrill and Jesse James are still revered here, regardless of thier actions, which where deemed acceptable by sympathisers given the atrocities and brutality of union troops in this area. However, you are exactly right, that just 15 miles away from confederate memorials in Missouri, you will find union memorials in Kansas and there is still some who simply refuse to forget.

I expect when Clint Eastwood passes away someone will erect something commemorating his portrayal of Josey Wales.:biggrin:

Albany Rifles
13 Nov 09,, 17:12
Welcome to Bushwhacker Museum (http://www.bushwhacker.org/)

John Brown Museum (http://www.kshs.org/places/johnbrown/index.htm)

2 different views on the same topic.

JAD_333
14 Nov 09,, 01:21
JAD, but given the constraints of time, this wasn't an inevitability. if lee had decisively defeated mcclellan at antietam, the british and french were ready to recognize the confederacy. with their recognition and the breaking of the union blockade, it would have been far harder to take down the south.

You have a good point there, but then why did Lee fail to defeat McClellan, although he clearly out-generaled him? He was outnumbered. He had all his troops in the field while McClellan, typically over-cautious, held a third of his in reserve. The outcome of the battle may have dissuaded the French and British from recognizing the CSA, if they had any such intention, but that possibility evaporated forever when Lincoln decided the standoff was enough of a victory to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. The proclamation gave too strong an impression that the US was winning the war for GB or France to risk alienating the US.

JAD_333
14 Nov 09,, 01:30
JAD & Astralis: [/B]Ref Antietam. A Confederate victory at Antietam would have prevented Lincoln from issuing the EP. That would have had enormous implications because then the European poweres could feel free to recognize the Confederacy with no fear of political backlash from their respective populaces.

I didn't see this before I replied to Astralis. I concur 100%.

Albany Rifles
14 Nov 09,, 02:06
I didn't see this before I replied to Astralis. I concur 100%.

Great Minds Think Alike!!!!

:biggrin:;)

Ironduke
14 Nov 09,, 04:00
JAD & Astralis: Ref Antietam. A Confederate victory at Antietam would have prevented Lincoln from issuing the EP. That would have had enormous implications because then the European poweres could feel free to recognize the Confederacy with no fear of political backlash from their respective populaces.
Maybe not immediately. What happens when the Union embargoes wheat exports? A 100% embargo is going to cause mass starvation, and probably make the potato famine look like a night's missed supper. Even an embargo of, say, 20%, could have driven up prices and caused unrest in France and Britain. Imagine if Russia, still smarting from the Crimean War, joined in. I think a simple threat alone would set alarm bells ringing in Paris and London.

The Union had massive leverage over both France and Britain. The South thought cotton was king, but cotton doesn't fill you up.

Shek
15 Nov 09,, 20:59
Okay, here's a branch question given the current batch of responses. If it was clear that a Confederate loss was inevitable at some point months before it was over, how should we view the losses that occured after that? How should history treat the decision of Davis (and Lee) to continue the fighting after the writing was on the wall? To what end did the continuation of hostilities serve?

JAD_333
16 Nov 09,, 02:03
Okay, here's a branch question given the current batch of responses. If it was clear that a Confederate loss was inevitable at some point months before it was over, how should we view the losses that occured after that? How should history treat the decision of Davis (and Lee) to continue the fighting after the writing was on the wall? To what end did the continuation of hostilities serve?

Shek:

That's a hell of a question. Not easy to answer since we have the benefit of hindsight. If one were able to step back in time not knowing for certain the outcome, one might say that neither Lee nor Davis was convinced all was lost. Perhaps they had a political motive, e.g., a conditional surrender. Or, perhaps they were hoping for a lucky break like McClellan's dithering (the fashionable word these days) earlier in the war or a tactical mistake by Grant. No question, prolonging the war would have frustrated northern voters and thereby improved the CSA's chances of getting a truce on favorable terms. And, finally, one cannot rule out the pride of a general and a committed army's will to fight with only scraps of hope remaining.

JAD_333
16 Nov 09,, 02:07
Maybe not immediately. What happens when the Union embargoes wheat exports? A 100% embargo is going to cause mass starvation, and probably make the potato famine look like a night's missed supper. Even an embargo of, say, 20%, could have driven up prices and caused unrest in France and Britain. Imagine if Russia, still smarting from the Crimean War, joined in. I think a simple threat alone would set alarm bells ringing in Paris and London.

The Union had massive leverage over both France and Britain. The South thought cotton was king, but cotton doesn't fill you up.

That makes good sense. I've always though that the threat of GB & France's recognition of the CSA, while a lingering possibility, was not as great as some make it out to be.

Shek
16 Nov 09,, 02:57
JAD,

Your point about hindsight bias is valid, but a quote that is attributable to Lee seems to beg this very question and seemingly points to Lee believing the game was pretty much up as of June 1864 - only the potential defeat of Lincoln left hope.


if he gets to the south of the James river, it will become a siege then its only a matter of time.

I don't have my book handy that has this quote, so the above may not be exact, but it is accurate as to the content. It is possible that he changed his mind, but it makes me wonder what conversations he had with Davis given that he felt this at one point. I haven't read anything on Jefferson Davis, so I don't his thoughts in the waning weeks/months of the war, but this is an area ripe for exploration.

I think your thoughts about trying to shape the peace is a potential line of thinking, although given the non-negotiation policy and the fact that the terms never changed, this was historically a poor choice, and even before the fact, dragging out the war and casualties seems to be a poor strategy to pursue if your only hope is for mercy at the point of a sword (given that there wasn't to be a negotiated settlement to end the war).

Blue
16 Nov 09,, 03:20
Okay, here's a branch question given the current batch of responses. If it was clear that a Confederate loss was inevitable at some point months before it was over, how should we view the losses that occured after that? How should history treat the decision of Davis (and Lee) to continue the fighting after the writing was on the wall? To what end did the continuation of hostilities serve? I'm not much of an analyst or historian, but I am a fighter. And If I thought I was fighting for my own freedom, I would never give up. IMO, the confederates where fighting for thier very freedom.

Makes sense to me not to give up.:cool:

Shek
16 Nov 09,, 03:39
I'm not much of an analyst or historian, but I am a fighter. And If I thought I was fighting for my own freedom, I would never give up. IMO, the confederates where fighting for thier very freedom.

Makes sense to me not to give up.:cool:

However, if Lee felt it was over if it came to a siege, then to what purpose were the 70K killed at Petersburg, plus thousands more killed in the pursuit to Appomattox and thousands killed in the other campaigns (e.g., Sherman's marches). I'm sure we could add thousands more that died of starvation.

What did this waste gain, other than some sense of fighting for a losing cause? The increase in the rate of desertion as the siege progressed paints a picture that many saw it as a lost cause.

JAD_333
16 Nov 09,, 05:58
JAD,Your point about hindsight bias is valid, but a quote that is attributable to Lee seems to beg this very question and seemingly points to Lee believing the game was pretty much up as of June 1864 - only the potential defeat of Lincoln left hope.


if he gets to the south of the James river, it will become a siege then its only a matter of time.

I don't have my book handy that has this quote, so the above may not be exact, but it is accurate as to the content. It is possible that he changed his mind, but it makes me wonder what conversations he had with Davis given that he felt this at one point. I haven't read anything on Jefferson Davis, so I don't his thoughts in the waning weeks/months of the war, but this is an area ripe for exploration.

My memory is vague on the final weeks in March 1865, but as I recall Lee after being evicted from Richmond, retreated westward. Was it to join up other confederate forces? Along the way he lost lots of men to casualties and desertion and was low on food, but--again my memory is vague on this --the final straw for him was the loss of maneuver room. He simply had no avenue of escape through Union lines and no hope of breaking through. At that point a good general can surrender with honor, and he did. It seems to me he held out until he could no longer mount a credible battle or take the initiative. The thought that the lager war could not be won took second place in his thinking at that moment in time. Later, of course, he called on all Confederate forces to lay down their arms.

Shek
16 Nov 09,, 12:11
My memory is vague on the final weeks in March 1865, but as I recall Lee after being evicted from Richmond, retreated westward. Was it to join up other confederate forces? Along the way he lost lots of men to casualties and desertion and was low on food, but--again my memory is vague on this --the final straw for him was the loss of maneuver room. He simply had no avenue of escape through Union lines and no hope of breaking through. At that point a good general can surrender with honor, and he did. It seems to me he held out until he could no longer mount a credible battle or take the initiative. The thought that the lager war could not be won took second place in his thinking at that moment in time. Later, of course, he called on all Confederate forces to lay down their arms.

All correct - he was able to move westward for under a week before he cut off from any and all hope of linking up with Johnston. To have not surrendered would have been utter slaughter.

zraver
16 Nov 09,, 14:19
What did this waste gain, other than some sense of fighting for a losing cause? The increase in the rate of desertion as the siege progressed paints a picture that many saw it as a lost cause.

For the rank and file, where are they going to go? For someone from Virginia or the Carolinian sure they can leave and walk home and try and dodge union scavenging parties or uppity slaves who might decide on some revenge. But if your from Western Tennesse, Arkansas, texas etc where are you going to go? Plus will you abandon your buddies. First you abandon the your county (USA), then you do it again (CSA) then your buddies.... I think most men have better character than that.

Every Union troop tied up reducing the remnants of the confederate armies is not pillaging the country side.

If your name is known to the radicals up north and you occupy a possition of authority in the CSA, then they want you to swing from a noose, as long as your fighting, your not facing the gallows.

Albany Rifles
16 Nov 09,, 16:02
Maybe not immediately. What happens when the Union embargoes wheat exports? A 100% embargo is going to cause mass starvation, and probably make the potato famine look like a night's missed supper. Even an embargo of, say, 20%, could have driven up prices and caused unrest in France and Britain. Imagine if Russia, still smarting from the Crimean War, joined in. I think a simple threat alone would set alarm bells ringing in Paris and London.

The Union had massive leverage over both France and Britain. The South thought cotton was king, but cotton doesn't fill you up.


I don't disagree. What I should have also stated that politically Lincoln would have to hold off on issuing the EP. The Democrats won a lot of seats in the 62 elections so he would have had less political backing to issue the EP...especially when the election results were added to the debacle of Fredericksburg.....Stones River was not enough of a Union victory to hang anything on.

While there is little doubt about the effect of a wheat embargo (and don't forget salted cod while you are at it) the Europeans could hae caused a lot more problems. Remember Napoleon III proposed a 6 month cease fire and negotiations. A loss at Antietam and no EP coupled with the trouncing at the polls could have led to a negotiated settlement.

Albany Rifles
16 Nov 09,, 16:25
Okay, here's a branch question given the current batch of responses. If it was clear that a Confederate loss was inevitable at some point months before it was over, how should we view the losses that occured after that? How should history treat the decision of Davis (and Lee) to continue the fighting after the writing was on the wall? To what end did the continuation of hostilities serve?

This a is a very good question. Here ae a couple points to think about.

Shek, you paraphrase of Lee was spot on. He knew once he got forced into the Richmond Petersburg Line then it was a matter of time...militarily.

There were a lot of dynamics at play. Up until the 1864 elections Davis, et al, hoped for a negotiated settlement and still believed in independence. As late as the Hampton Roads Conference in FEB 65 they still believed that Independence was attainable.

Hampton Roads Conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampton_Roads_Conference)


Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, where he preached an easy peace, only took place a month before the end of the war.

So why did they keep fighting? Simple, they still believed in their cause. And while they took some actions which flew in the face of those beliefs (i.e., the forming of black Confederate untis in March 1865), they were still strongly held.

Blue
16 Nov 09,, 16:49
I'm not much of an analyst or historian, but I am a fighter. And If I thought I was fighting for my own freedom, I would never give up. IMO, the confederates where fighting for thier very freedom.

Makes sense to me not to give up.:cool:


However, if Lee felt it was over if it came to a siege, then to what purpose were the 70K killed at Petersburg, plus thousands more killed in the pursuit to Appomattox and thousands killed in the other campaigns (e.g., Sherman's marches). I'm sure we could add thousands more that died of starvation.

What did this waste gain, other than some sense of fighting for a losing cause? The increase in the rate of desertion as the siege progressed paints a picture that many saw it as a lost cause. But not the ones calling the shots.



So why did they keep fighting? Simple, they still believed in their cause. Hey! Nice to agree ever so often.:biggrin:


And while they took some actions which flew in the face of those beliefs (i.e., the forming of black Confederate untis in March 1865), they were still strongly held. How did this fly in the face of strongly held beliefs?

astralis
16 Nov 09,, 17:10
7th,


How did this fly in the face of strongly held beliefs?


the idea of a black man as anything but a slave was considered unnatural-- let alone a soldier, as fighting spirit was seen to be the exclusive domain of the anglo-saxon.

Albany Rifles
16 Nov 09,, 18:55
7th,

the idea of a black man as anything but a slave was considered unnatural-- let alone a soldier, as fighting spirit was seen to be the exclusive domain of the anglo-saxon.

As Astralis said. The arming of slaves was anethema to the antibellum South. It was a last gasp attempt to raise manpower for the fight.

I hope no one thought I had issue with black soldiers. If so, my bad.

Blue
16 Nov 09,, 22:27
As Astralis said. The arming of slaves was anethema to the antibellum South. It was a last gasp attempt to raise manpower for the fight.

I hope no one thought I had issue with black soldiers. If so, my bad.

Never crossed my mind you had issue with Black soldiers. However,




the idea of a black man as anything but a slave was considered unnatural-- let alone a soldier, as fighting spirit was seen to be the exclusive domain of the anglo-saxon. That attitude was probably more true of the Union. Its is wholly untrue, as posted in the civil war really over? thread. I won't cover this subject anymore here because we would just have the same convo going and i already derailed this once.:redface::redface:

JAD_333
17 Nov 09,, 06:03
All correct -

Break out the champagne...an A from the prof.:biggrin:

JAD_333
17 Nov 09,, 06:21
As Astralis said. The arming of slaves was anethema to the antibellum South. It was a last gasp attempt to raise manpower for the fight.

It was also a huge contradiction in what southern whites and soldiers had been told they were fighting for. SC, for example was clear that it was fighting to keep slavery alive. Entwined with this objective was the strongly held belief that the negro was inherently inferior to whites. I've read that after the Confederate congress voted ( in 1865) to form slave battalions and promised slaves who fought freedom for their service, white southerners were shocked and conflicted. Here was their own "country" about to turn the notion of negro ineptitude on its head. "What have we been fighting for..." was a question on lots of southern minds.

Julie
19 Nov 09,, 00:16
Many southerners, who were generally conservative and realistic, were not convinced that the end of slavery would allow their society to remain prosperous. Some wished to, in time, remedy the situation themselves and thus feared and resented northerners who condemned and insulted southerners but provided no real solution for the slavery dilemma.

Southerners knew that the British, whom they admired in many respects, had ended slavery through a progressive, compensatory strategy and saw nothing in the Republican Party that resembled that approach. Thus, the southern soldier felt that he went to war as a patriot, defending his community, and as a man on the high ground, one who could, with a clear conscience, defend slavery on the grounds that no northerner could plan a correct form of emancipation. Their belief was that northerners only wished to harm the southern people, both white and black.

Ironically, southern fighting men believed that they protected slaves from something worse than slavery.

http://www.civilwarhistorian.com/pdf/Interpreting%20Slavery%202-3.pdf

Crocodylus
19 Nov 09,, 04:21
Many southerners, who were generally conservative and realistic, were not convinced that the end of slavery would allow their society to remain prosperous. Some wished to, in time, remedy the situation themselves and thus feared and resented northerners who condemned and insulted southerners but provided no real solution for the slavery dilemma.

Southerners knew that the British, whom they admired in many respects, had ended slavery through a progressive, compensatory strategy and saw nothing in the Republican Party that resembled that approach. Thus, the southern soldier felt that he went to war as a patriot, defending his community, and as a man on the high ground, one who could, with a clear conscience, defend slavery on the grounds that no northerner could plan a correct form of emancipation. Their belief was that northerners only wished to harm the southern people, both white and black.

Ironically, southern fighting men believed that they protected slaves from something worse than slavery.

http://www.civilwarhistorian.com/pdf/Interpreting%20Slavery%202-3.pdf I have to agree with the above - although the North probably did not like having an independent state just to its south. Which leads me to ask, had the Southern States remained independent after the US Civil War, how would Manifest Destiny have played out as a result?

As for something "worse than slavery", there is a grain of truth to that. For centuries Black people in the South were regarded by Whites as a class of servants and anything else was considered unnatural. As a result most Blacks in the South considered themselves to be members of their master's household - albeit as "property" - and there was no large organized movement to free all the Black slaves and give them an identity as an independent race of people. In fact, once the slaves were emancipated, the protection of their masters was lost and they became the target of persecution by the KKK and other Whites who did not like the new state of affairs.

Emancipation was the perfect pretext for the Union to go to war with the South. I doubt that President Lincoln was intent on freeing Black slaves in the South on moral grounds - even though this is the version of history taught as historical fact in all US public schools.

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 04:56
FRANKLIN.

Before that, there were alternatives to Confederate defeat.

After, there were NOT.

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 04:59
I'd date it to the re-election of Lincoln.
Yeah, purty much. The ONLY hope the South EVER had was a political 'win', a collapse of will in the North. And once the People had spoken by re-electing Lincoln, that hope went bye-bye.


Once he was secure in office with a veto proof GOP majority, there was nothing that was going to stop Grant and Sherman. Your thoughts?
Absolutely correct.

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 05:06
I don't know nearly as much as you guys do about the American Civil War, but I would have to say the turning point came with the Battle Of Gettysburg in 1863; after that, the result of the War was inevitable, with the change of momentum from the South to the North, and the Union's continually increasing output of mean & materiel. It was just a matter of time from then on for the North to defeat the South. I believe the pivotal moment was the Battle Of Gettysburg; if the North had been defeated, I think a negotiated peace would have been possible for the South after that, with a possible partition of the country resulting from the negotiations.
Could've still happened, and almost DID. Until Lincoln was re-elected, the Peace Party (the Democrats, in their by-now time-honored fashion) were hot to quit, and Grant's ruinous casualties in the summer of '64 campaign ALMOST broke the national will.

And then came the Confederate calamities in the West, culminating in the Battle of Franklin, 22 days after Lincoln's re-election, made possible by the fall of Atlanta.

The Confederacy had long odds to win, but it was still possible before Nov '64. But not aFTER.

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 05:14
I would say on 1 SEP 1864. Atlanta fell in the West on that day. It was the Fall of Atlanta which provided the key to Lincoln's election success. Mobile fell to Farragut's forces as part of the battles of Mobile Bay.

In the East Grant had Lee pinned into the Petersburg-Richmond line. Lee was decisively engaged and had no ability to maneuver on higher than the tactical level. 2 of the 4 routes into Petersburg were cut and the Army of the Potomoac had weathered the near crippling loss of units having their enlistments run out. After August it only grew stronger with fresh units.

In the Shenandoah Valley Jubal Early is about to be run to ground by Phil Sheridan. In 7 weeks his Early's army would cease to exist.

In the Trans Mississippi Sterling Price's Missouri Raid is coming to its ignominious conclusion.


Oh, the Democrats nominate McClellan...just about assuring Lincoln reelection!!
Actually, he dam' near made it. I'm not talking about the actual vote count (wasn't close). BUT...

If circumstances had been different in the war's course vis-a-vis Grant and Sherman, Lincoln would've lost that election in a landslide.

Consider:
Grant gets crushed at North Anna, losing massive numbers to an enemy army that he outnumbers two-to-one. Sherman fails to take Atlanta. Both generals are championed by one Abe Lincoln against MASSIVE opposition (Grant is a drunk butcherer; Sherman is mad). If they are failures, their patron is a goner at the polls.

Grant avoids calamity, and keeps the offensive campaign going deeper into the South's vitals, showing more fight and success than all the other generals before him, INCLUDING, by the way, the man now running against Lincoln. Sherman takes Atlanta, AND is advancing virtually unopposed through the ripped guts of the Southern states.

That's what ACTUALLY happened, but that was not fore-ordained. If it had NOT happened...Lincoln would almost certainly have lost, and the Confederacy is an established fact.

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 05:17
Despite being a civil war, i think it can be said that it was a "clausewitzian war" and if I remember him right a war is one won archiving one of the following three things (or a mix of them)

Destroying the enemy completly
Destroying his ability to fight
Destroying his will to fight

I believe it is safe to say that the South could not have destroyed the North, and I see it as rather unlikely that they would have been able to take away the Norths abilty to continue fighting due its larger manpower and economy. So the only hope left for them would have been to take away the North will to keep fighting.

That was ALWAYS the entire game. All the South wanted was to be left alone by the North. They didn't want or need to take Washington, or New York, or ANYthing.

All they had to do was to keep existing longer than the North was willing to keep paying the price to make 'em come to heel. Almost happened, too.

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 05:18
Sorry to not wish a brother success, but given his current affiliation, I have to say the last thing this state needs is another democrat in office.:frown:
Might as well vote for the Taliban.

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 05:20
I don't think all Dems are bad though.
I do.

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 05:26
i agree with AR on 1 Sep 1864. as late as july 1864, the union was going through some pretty bad war exhaustion, with both armies seemingly stalled.

the biggest threat wasn't even the nomination of McClellan (he wanted to continue prosecuting the war, too), but the nomination of Seymour. had the copperhead beat both McClellan and Lincoln, the south would either have won its independence...or the pissed off Union armies would have been VERY tempted to go march on Washington.
When you look at what was going on BEFORE the Union armies got on a roll - draft riots, Molly Macguires, Copperheads, Peace Party momentum, casualty lists that went to the 'omiGAWD' scale, and continuously bad generals being defeated everywhere but in the West - it was a helluva lot closer call than most people realize. The People dam' near lost faith, figured, really, what's so bad about 'em going their own way? Didn't we ALL do that in 1776, and haven't we been taught how heroic it all was?

It was a dam' close call, and in the end, it was the iron will of two men that prevented it from happening: Lincoln and Grant.

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 05:29
You have a good point there, but then why did Lee fail to defeat McClellan, although he clearly out-generaled him? He was outnumbered. He had all his troops in the field while McClellan, typically over-cautious, held a third of his in reserve. The outcome of the battle may have dissuaded the French and British from recognizing the CSA, if they had any such intention, but that possibility evaporated forever when Lincoln decided the standoff was enough of a victory to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. The proclamation gave too strong an impression that the US was winning the war for GB or France to risk alienating the US.

It wasn't REALLY a stand-off. Lee broke off the invasion of the North and retreated, and it was generally acknowledged that, although he fought like a tiger to survive, and DID, it was almost a wipe-out. (And SHOULD have been, too; my wife could've managed the Union army better than its commander did, and ANYbody but that twit could've swept Lee right into the river and ended the war THAT DAY.)

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 05:35
Okay, here's a branch question given the current batch of responses. If it was clear that a Confederate loss was inevitable at some point months before it was over, how should we view the losses that occured after that? How should history treat the decision of Davis (and Lee) to continue the fighting after the writing was on the wall? To what end did the continuation of hostilities serve?

It was Lee's DUTY to keep fighting as long as it was physically possible to do so, and remember that DUTY was Lee's motivator his entire, disciplined LIFE. He had no choice.

Davis was a student of Washington, and if there was EVER a story of an impossible triumph out of dark days and low fortunes, baby, THAT was the archtype. He thought that HE was Washington reincarnate, and if he WAS, well, then, he had to stand the incredible heartbreak and depressing regularity of disappointment, just as his hero had done in the disastrous course of HIS war, that carried through to such a glorious and improbable conclusion. Davis was to be the Father of HIS Country, too. And to do that, you can't quit when it's hopeless.

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 05:39
JAD,

Your point about hindsight bias is valid, but a quote that is attributable to Lee seems to beg this very question and seemingly points to Lee believing the game was pretty much up as of June 1864 - only the potential defeat of Lincoln left hope.



I don't have my book handy that has this quote, so the above may not be exact, but it is accurate as to the content. It is possible that he changed his mind, but it makes me wonder what conversations he had with Davis given that he felt this at one point. I haven't read anything on Jefferson Davis, so I don't his thoughts in the waning weeks/months of the war, but this is an area ripe for exploration.

I think your thoughts about trying to shape the peace is a potential line of thinking, although given the non-negotiation policy and the fact that the terms never changed, this was historically a poor choice, and even before the fact, dragging out the war and casualties seems to be a poor strategy to pursue if your only hope is for mercy at the point of a sword (given that there wasn't to be a negotiated settlement to end the war).

Wasn't his call to make. The army can still stand to its arms and is not helpless? Then, General Lee, fight on.

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 05:43
However, if Lee felt it was over if it came to a siege, then to what purpose were the 70K killed at Petersburg, plus thousands more killed in the pursuit to Appomattox and thousands killed in the other campaigns (e.g., Sherman's marches). I'm sure we could add thousands more that died of starvation.

What did this waste gain, other than some sense of fighting for a losing cause? The increase in the rate of desertion as the siege progressed paints a picture that many saw it as a lost cause.
The men in the ranks were voting with their feet. With almost zero horseflesh to spare for the Provost, desertion was a matter of walking off your post when you got a minute alone.

But Lee could not simply stop fighting, nor surrender the army, nor ANYthing that was not a reflection of the will of his commander. It simply wasn't possible, and when he was finally COMPELLED to surrender, it really was because anything else was sheer murder, because his army was then helpless to defend itself or the country.

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 05:44
My memory is vague on the final weeks in March 1865, but as I recall Lee after being evicted from Richmond, retreated westward. Was it to join up other confederate forces? Along the way he lost lots of men to casualties and desertion and was low on food, but--again my memory is vague on this --the final straw for him was the loss of maneuver room. He simply had no avenue of escape through Union lines and no hope of breaking through. At that point a good general can surrender with honor, and he did. It seems to me he held out until he could no longer mount a credible battle or take the initiative. The thought that the lager war could not be won took second place in his thinking at that moment in time. Later, of course, he called on all Confederate forces to lay down their arms.

Exactly so. He knew he had done his duty as well as he could, and THEN, ONLY THEN, could surrender be contemplated.

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 05:47
This a is a very good question. Here ae a couple points to think about.

Shek, you paraphrase of Lee was spot on. He knew once he got forced into the Richmond Petersburg Line then it was a matter of time...militarily.

There were a lot of dynamics at play. Up until the 1864 elections Davis, et al, hoped for a negotiated settlement and still believed in independence. As late as the Hampton Roads Conference in FEB 65 they still believed that Independence was attainable.

Hampton Roads Conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampton_Roads_Conference)


Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, where he preached an easy peace, only took place a month before the end of the war.

So why did they keep fighting? Simple, they still believed in their cause. And while they took some actions which flew in the face of those beliefs (i.e., the forming of black Confederate untis in March 1865), they were still strongly held.
The story of Washington's heroism and unbreakable will was a powerful motivator to keep striving, even though it looked hopeless, because, hey, ya never know which way Fortune's dice will land.

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 05:52
7th,



the idea of a black man as anything but a slave was considered unnatural-- let alone a soldier, as fighting spirit was seen to be the exclusive domain of the anglo-saxon.

The ONLY reason it went anywhere was because Lee backed the idea. The Confederate government was simply not prepared to deny Lee ANYthing he asked for. Even at THAT, the leading political philosopher of the Confederacy said that 'if negroes make good soldiers, then our entire theory of slavery is wrong.'

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 05:56
It was also a huge contradiction in what southern whites and soldiers had been told they were fighting for. SC, for example was clear that it was fighting to keep slavery alive. Entwined with this objective was the strongly held belief that the negro was inherently inferior to whites. I've read that after the Confederate congress voted ( in 1865) to form slave battalions and promised slaves who fought freedom for their service, white southerners were shocked and conflicted. Here was their own "country" about to turn the notion of negro ineptitude on its head. "What have we been fighting for..." was a question on lots of southern minds.

Almost an exact quote. Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, 'What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?'

JAD_333
19 Nov 09,, 07:33
Exactly so. He knew he had done his duty as well as he could, and THEN, ONLY THEN, could surrender be contemplated.

Hi... Good of you to pop in for some brief remarks. I, for one, never had much faith that your self-imposed exile was permanent, but you don't have to make up for your long absence in one day. :))

Back to the thread, the above you put well. That is indeed what I was trying to say.

The Virginia Senator who questioned why fight if not to protect property, i.e. slaves, expresses one side of the equation. The other was the absolute conviction that blacks were inferior to whites. This allowed white southerners to rationalize slavery as best for blacks. If you have had that drummed into your head for years, what are you to think when your own government plans to arm slaves to fight for you?

Ironduke
19 Nov 09,, 09:19
That was ALWAYS the entire game. All the South wanted was to be left alone by the North. They didn't want or need to take Washington, or New York, or ANYthing.
Well, they did want Kentucky and Missouri; New Mexico, Arizona and Indian Territories, as well as retaining West Virginia.

Shek
19 Nov 09,, 12:19
Wasn't his call to make. The army can still stand to its arms and is not helpless? Then, General Lee, fight on.

I'd agree that given civilian control of the military, it is a duty. However, where were his protests given his thoughts about the seige? They may exist since I haven't read his papers or a specific biography on him, but in the general histories, I've yet to come upon protests, which is the duty of a commander - giving his unvarnished military advice. This is something which I know Lee never had a problem doing earlier in the war.

Blue
19 Nov 09,, 15:28
Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper
I don't think all Dems are bad though.



I do.

Hey again Blues! Glad to hear from you!


Well I have a lot of family that are Dems. However, they vote Rep all the time. Does this make them bad? No, just confused about thier affiliation. Now the ones that vote Dem....well they are just dumb.

Bad dems are the ones with what I would have to consider nefarious intentions, self-gain mainly, promoting socialist/communist ideals. Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, etc, fit the bill in that case.

The way I see it. The voters get what they deserve. If they keep voting Socialist jerks in office, then that they shall have. I for one will never be less free than what I am now. Few here really understand what I mean when I say that, but I'm good with whatever happens. In my opinion, things can only get better, one way or the other.;)

JAD_333
19 Nov 09,, 17:30
The way I see it. The voters get what they deserve. If they keep voting Socialist jerks in office, then that they shall have.

No one plays the sad violin better than liberal democrats. I mean, hell, man, who votes for "deprivation" aside from those who can see that freebies aren't free at all, at least not for taxpayers. To the hills!:)

Bigfella
19 Nov 09,, 21:19
No one plays the sad violin better than liberal democrats. I mean, hell, man, who votes for "deprivation" aside from those who can see that freebies aren't free at all, at least not for taxpayers. To the hills!:)


There is a very good argument that a whole segment of the GOP base is wrapping itself in the cloak of victimhood every bit as completely as any part of the Democrat base ever did.

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 21:59
Hi... Good of you to pop in for some brief remarks. I, for one, never had much faith that your self-imposed exile was permanent, but you don't have to make up for your long absence in one day. :))
I look in occasionally, but I have to limit myself to stuff like this topic. The rest is so rubbish-filled, I find my blood pressure spiking when I read it.

Still in exile; but engaging in cross-border raiding. :)


Back to the thread, the above you put well. That is indeed what I was trying to say.

The Virginia Senator who questioned why fight if not to protect property, i.e. slaves, expresses one side of the equation. The other was the absolute conviction that blacks were inferior to whites. This allowed white southerners to rationalize slavery as best for blacks. If you have had that drummed into your head for years, what are you to think when your own government plans to arm slaves to fight for you?
Even many Northerners felt that way. (From my certain first-hand knowledge, many still do.)

But yeah, racism was not a dirty word back then. I think it is significant that the South had the only non-white general officer. They paid black soldiers the same worthless Confederate money as white soldiers, while it was Union Army policy to pay their colored troops LESS than whites. The Confederate veep was a Jew; that STILL has not been managed by the US, and except for the anomoly represented by the current prez, it has been an unbroken string of white Christian men at the top two spots.

I could go on, but you get the point: racism was simply how it WAS, for BOTH sides.

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 22:06
Well, they did want Kentucky and Missouri; New Mexico, Arizona and Indian Territories, as well as retaining West Virginia.

West Virginia; what a great study in hypocrisy.

Okay for part of a STATE to secede, but each state was somehow indivisible from each other, no matter how much the rights of any state or states was trampled by the others.

Funny how THAT works.

Kentuck, Maryland and Missouri would have seceded, IF it had been left up to each, but brute force kept 'em from joining, and the other Confederate states felt that they were doing no more than calling for the respect of those states' decisions to secede, so it wasn't like the South 'demanded' that they be 'given' to the Confederacy.

ANYhoo, I was just answering the point that the South could not have conquered the North. It never intended to. All it wanted was OUT.

Oh, and here's a little factoid that goes in my post above: the last slave-holding state? DELAWARE, faithful, loyal, Union-supporting Delaware.

It wasn't JUST the South that was racist.

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 22:14
I'd agree that given civilian control of the military, it is a duty. However, where were his protests given his thoughts about the seige? They may exist since I haven't read his papers or a specific biography on him, but in the general histories, I've yet to come upon protests, which is the duty of a commander - giving his unvarnished military advice. This is something which I know Lee never had a problem doing earlier in the war.

He told 'em. I think when he lost at Gettysburg, and Vicksburg fell the day he began the retreat out of Pennsylvania, he wrote his letter of resignation.

He was called to Richmond shortly after the army made it safely back to Virginia, and he told 'em all then that even if they did NOT accept his resignation, he felt that the war would be lost.

Their response was to make him General-in-Chief on 31 January, 1865.

Bluesman
19 Nov 09,, 22:19
Hey again Blues! Glad to hear from you!


Well I have a lot of family that are Dems. However, they vote Rep all the time. Does this make them bad? No, just confused about thier affiliation. Now the ones that vote Dem....well they are just dumb.

Bad dems are the ones with what I would have to consider nefarious intentions, self-gain mainly, promoting socialist/communist ideals. Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, etc, fit the bill in that case.

The way I see it. The voters get what they deserve. If they keep voting Socialist jerks in office, then that they shall have. I for one will never be less free than what I am now. Few here really understand what I mean when I say that, but I'm good with whatever happens. In my opinion, things can only get better, one way or the other.;)

I hold 'em all as responsible for making that band of vipers, idiots and traitors The Power in the country. If not for the 'good' Democrats, Pelosi, Reid, adn the entire pantheon of evil, self-serving, America-hating, incompetent, foolish, back-stabbing villains that the Democrat Party consists of would be powerless over the rest of us, and we would not be in danger of losing the Republic that so many have sacrificed so much to rpeserve up to now.

Included in that is a man that should know better: the guy Shek describes as upstanding and well-intentioned has empowered the nation's enemies. Can't get over that. Don't WANT to, either.

This is the fact: the country's levers of power have been captured intact by the enemy. Anybody that aids and abets that is also the enemy. QED.

Ironduke
19 Nov 09,, 22:51
West Virginia; what a great study in hypocrisy.

Okay for part of a STATE to secede, but each state was somehow indivisible from each other, no matter how much the rights of any state or states was trampled by the others.

Funny how THAT works.

Kentuck, Maryland and Missouri would have seceded, IF it had been left up to each, but brute force kept 'em from joining, and the other Confederate states felt that they were doing no more than calling for the respect of those states' decisions to secede, so it wasn't like the South 'demanded' that they be 'given' to the Confederacy.
I don't think there's any historical evidence to suggest that secession was supported in Maryland by a minority of the population, with a geographic split (like in Virginia). When push came to shove, the Kentucky legislature overwhelmingly picked what side it wanted to be on (not the Confederacy). Missouri, another Virginia with strong split loyalties.

At any rate, I think it's pretty telling that far more volunteers from the Confederacy joined the Union Army than the other way around (even including the border states).

Oh, and here's a little factoid that goes in my post above: the last slave-holding state? DELAWARE, faithful, loyal, Union-supporting Delaware.

It wasn't JUST the South that was racist.
For the matter of perspective, Delaware had about 1800 slaves in 1861, a large majority of which ran off at some point in the war. Less than DC. The rest of the slaveholding states had about 4 million. That's about 4-5 1000ths of 1 percent of the total slave population. There were 5 states in the Confederacy alone that had slave populations either greater than or roughly equal to the white population.

Besides, slavery wasn't really done away with in the former Confederacy with the Emancipation Proclamation. It persisted in forms into the 20th century, just called something else.

Wasn't Delaware part of the South then? But no, you're right, it wasn't just the South that was racist. I'd bet money that the majority of the Northern population would have loved to see the entire black population shipped to Africa.

Blue
20 Nov 09,, 00:07
Missouri, another Virginia with strong split loyalties. Missouri has always had two problems, St Louis and Kansas city. The state could have split in two about 20 south miles of each and been fine because even today, the North end of the state are always the ones that vote overwhelmingly liberal and hold up things like our conceal carry bill that would have passed much earlier if not for the liberal jackasses in the two metropoli.

This end of the state was overwhelmingly confederate and I guess you could say it still is.:rolleyes:

Shek
20 Nov 09,, 03:14
They paid black soldiers the same worthless Confederate money as white soldiers, while it was Union Army policy to pay their colored troops LESS than whites.

Keith,

Black troops were payed less for about a year until June 1864, at which point it was rectified and backpay was issued as well to equalize pay.

Shek
20 Nov 09,, 03:16
I don't think there's any historical evidence to suggest that secession was supported in Maryland by a minority of the population, with a geographic split (like in Virginia). When push came to shove, the Kentucky legislature overwhelmingly picked what side it wanted to be on (not the Confederacy). Missouri, another Virginia with strong split loyalties.

Southern sympathies were quite high in MD. There's a reason that Lincoln snuck through Baltimore in the middle of the night while enroute for his own inauguration, which is the same reason that Lincoln removed the writ of habeas corpus and declared martial law in Baltimore towards the beginning of the war.

Shek
20 Nov 09,, 03:24
He told 'em. I think when he lost at Gettysburg, and Vicksburg fell the day he began the retreat out of Pennsylvania, he wrote his letter of resignation.

He was called to Richmond shortly after the army made it safely back to Virginia, and he told 'em all then that even if they did NOT accept his resignation, he felt that the war would be lost.

Maybe I missed it, but Sears doesn't mention this at all in his Gettysburg book in his discussion about Lee's resignation. Instead, his resignation was all about losing at Gettysburg and his responsibility as the commander of the ANV for the unsuccessful campaign. In fact, while he stated on a couple of occasions that a seige of Richmond would be the end, it wasn't until the non-success of Early's raid in drawing Grant from Richmond (just as Lee's movement north in 1862 after taking command had drawn away McClellan) that I think he would have seen the siege as being a done deal.


Their response was to make him General-in-Chief on 31 January, 1865.

Gallagher's argument is that Lee was the soul of the South, and so while I don't know any specific interpretation of the promotion, drawing from Gallagher, this seems more like a move to stiffen resolve as well as to try and use his generalship to overcome the poor showing of other generals at the high command.

Albany Rifles
20 Nov 09,, 17:11
Southern sympathies were quite high in MD. There's a reason that Lincoln snuck through Baltimore in the middle of the night while enroute for his own inauguration, which is the same reason that Lincoln removed the writ of habeas corpus and declared martial law in Baltimore towards the beginning of the war.

In fact Confederate sympathies ran high in Eastern Maryland.

Baltimore riot of 1861 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861)

And while Deleware did not provide any Confederate units some men crossed the border and served in maryland Confederate or Virginia units.


As for West Virginia...the 1st and 2d Wheeling Conventions met to discuss a way for all of Virginia to stay loyal to the Federal Government. Every county in Virginia which voted against secession were represented and voted to stay with the Union. Most of the ballots regarding secession from the western counties mystreriously did no make it to be counted in Richmond.

The original intention was to represent the entire state. But once it became apparent that there was no reconciliation with Richmond the state of West Virginia was formed. Was it legal? That is still open to debate and there was considerable debate at the time. But as Lincoln said, in essence, Secession in support of the Union is allowed; secession against the Union is not.

The Restored Government of Virginia would go on to actually form the Loyal civil government of the Commonwealth after the formation of West Virginia all the way until the new Constitution was formed in 1869.

First Wheeling Convention (http://www.wvculture.org/hiStory/statehood/statehood05.html)

First Session of the Second Wheeling Convention (http://www.wvculture.org/hiStory/statehood/statehood07.html)

Wheeling Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeling_Convention)

Restored government of Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restored_government_of_Virginia)

Julie
20 Nov 09,, 20:55
Keith,

Black troops were payed less for about a year until June 1864, at which point it was rectified and backpay was issued as well to equalize pay.There was just a little more to it than that, if I may.

Far more troubling to black soldiers than the lack of officers’ commissions for African Americans was the matter of unequal pay. Black men recruited in 1862and early 1863 had often enlisted with the promise that they would receive the same pay and allowances as white Union soldiers ($13 per month, with an additional $3.50 allowance per month for clothing). In June 1863, however, the War Department decided that the pay of black soldiers was covered under the 1862 Militia Act, which fixed the pay of African Americans working for the government at $10 per month, regardless of their type of employment. Then, adding insult to injury, the War Department determined $3per month would be deducted for clothing, leaving black soldiers with only $7 per month, regardless of rank. (Normally, higher enlisted ranks above corporal received more pay.)

African-American troops were outraged by this decision. Not only did it make it harder for black soldiers to support their families, it was also an insult to their manhood. In the 54th Massachusetts Infantry, black soldiers refused to accept their pay until they were paid the same as white soldiers. They even declined an offer from Governor Andrew to use state funds to make up the difference in pay. Clearly, the men of the 54th were concerned about the black soldiers outside of Massachusetts who would not have their pay differential covered by a sympathetic state government. In addition, accepting Andrew’s offer would compromise the principle of equal pay for all Union soldiers. Seeing the racist intent of the War Department in offering unequal pay, they made a resolute and principled stand, at considerable hardship to themselves and their families.

Yet the reaction of the men of the 54th Massachusetts was restrained compared to black soldiers in South Carolina. In November 1863, a company of the 3rd South Carolina Volunteers (later the 21st U.S. Colored Infantry), led by Sergeant William Walker, stacked their arms and refused to continue serving until their pay was equalized with those of white men. This action constituted mutiny in the eyes of federal authorities, and Colonel Augustus G. Bennett, despite being sympathetic to his men’s plight, had Walker arrested when he refused to lead his men back to duty. Walker was convicted of mutiny, and he was executed by firing squad in front of the regiment on February 29, 1864. Upon hearing of Walker’s death, Governor Andrew declared that “the Government which found no law to pay him except as a non-descript or a contraband, nevertheless found law enough to shoot him as a soldier” (Trudeau 1998, p.254).

The actions of the 54th Massachusetts and the 3rd South Carolina brought the unequal pay controversy to the attention of the Northern public. Nowhere else was racial discrimination so blatant, quantifiable, and demonstrably unfair. Finally, in June 1864, Congress passed legislation equalizing pay retroactively to Jan. 1, 1864. Later, Congress equalized pay for free blacks back to the time of their enlistment, and subsequent administrative action by Attorney General Edward Bates effectively did the same for African-American soldiers who had enlisted in the Union army straight out of slavery.

Black Civil War Soldiers (http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/5997/Black-Civil-War-Soldiers.html)

Julie
20 Nov 09,, 20:58
I'd bet money that the majority of the Northern population would have loved to see the entire black population shipped to Africa.That is so very true.

March 3 1863, Congress passed the first national Conscription Act, requiring the enlistment of males between 20 and 45. Substitutes or a payment of $300 could be used for exemption. Although the new law did not exclude African Americans, resentment against the act erupted into violence against blacks who were accused of starting the Civil War. During the four days from 13 to 16 July 1863, primarily Irish-Americans and other poorer men hit hard by the new act, participated in draft riots in New York City, destroying property and lynching blacks. Federal troops were called in to restore order.

The Civil War (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2967.html)

Shek
24 Nov 09,, 01:58
There was just a little more to it than that, if I may.

Far more troubling to black soldiers than the lack of officers’ commissions for African Americans was the matter of unequal pay. Black men recruited in 1862and early 1863 had often enlisted with the promise that they would receive the same pay and allowances as white Union soldiers ($13 per month, with an additional $3.50 allowance per month for clothing). In June 1863, however, the War Department decided that the pay of black soldiers was covered under the 1862 Militia Act, which fixed the pay of African Americans working for the government at $10 per month, regardless of their type of employment. Then, adding insult to injury, the War Department determined $3per month would be deducted for clothing, leaving black soldiers with only $7 per month, regardless of rank. (Normally, higher enlisted ranks above corporal received more pay.)

African-American troops were outraged by this decision. Not only did it make it harder for black soldiers to support their families, it was also an insult to their manhood. In the 54th Massachusetts Infantry, black soldiers refused to accept their pay until they were paid the same as white soldiers. They even declined an offer from Governor Andrew to use state funds to make up the difference in pay. Clearly, the men of the 54th were concerned about the black soldiers outside of Massachusetts who would not have their pay differential covered by a sympathetic state government. In addition, accepting Andrew’s offer would compromise the principle of equal pay for all Union soldiers. Seeing the racist intent of the War Department in offering unequal pay, they made a resolute and principled stand, at considerable hardship to themselves and their families.

Yet the reaction of the men of the 54th Massachusetts was restrained compared to black soldiers in South Carolina. In November 1863, a company of the 3rd South Carolina Volunteers (later the 21st U.S. Colored Infantry), led by Sergeant William Walker, stacked their arms and refused to continue serving until their pay was equalized with those of white men. This action constituted mutiny in the eyes of federal authorities, and Colonel Augustus G. Bennett, despite being sympathetic to his men’s plight, had Walker arrested when he refused to lead his men back to duty. Walker was convicted of mutiny, and he was executed by firing squad in front of the regiment on February 29, 1864. Upon hearing of Walker’s death, Governor Andrew declared that “the Government which found no law to pay him except as a non-descript or a contraband, nevertheless found law enough to shoot him as a soldier” (Trudeau 1998, p.254).

The actions of the 54th Massachusetts and the 3rd South Carolina brought the unequal pay controversy to the attention of the Northern public. Nowhere else was racial discrimination so blatant, quantifiable, and demonstrably unfair. Finally, in June 1864, Congress passed legislation equalizing pay retroactively to Jan. 1, 1864. Later, Congress equalized pay for free blacks back to the time of their enlistment, and subsequent administrative action by Attorney General Edward Bates effectively did the same for African-American soldiers who had enlisted in the Union army straight out of slavery.

Black Civil War Soldiers (http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/5997/Black-Civil-War-Soldiers.html)

Not quite correct. The June 1864 act gave backpay to the time of enlistment for all soldiers that had been free prior to enlisting (it also awarded the bounties, what we call enlistment bonuses today, which were quite substantial). The only to January 1864 backpay was for those who had been freed by Union soldiers and then subsequently volunteered. This was later changed in March 1865 to be retroactive all the way back to enlistment.

Black soldiers in blue: African ... - Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=lfZkwLqR0s4C&lpg=PA51&dq=retroactive%20pay%20colored%20troops%20civil%20 war&client=safari&pg=PA51#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

Julie
24 Nov 09,, 02:06
Shek, my point is, had not black soldiers contested this pay discrimination, by their actions evidenced above, what would the liklihood of it being rectified by the Government? Your opinion?

Shek
24 Nov 09,, 03:43
Shek, my point is, had not black soldiers contested this pay discrimination, by their actions evidenced above, what would the liklihood of it being rectified by the Government? Your opinion?

It would have been rectified under the Congress elected in the 1864 election at the latest. For an interesting read on the topic, here's a recent article that touches on this subject.

The Intersection between Military Justice and Equal Rights: Mutinies, Courts-martial, and Black Civil War Soldiers
Civil War History - Volume 53, Number 2, June 2007

Interestingly, William Walker, who is the poster child in the source you used, had a past history of mutiny against both white and black leaders in his unit. That doesn't negate that the issue was also brought up in other contexts, where the courts-martial demonstrated the fairness and non-discriminatory nature of the application of military justice in the whole.

Julie
24 Nov 09,, 03:47
It would have been rectified under the Congress elected in the 1864 election at the latest. For an interesting read on the topic, here's a recent article that touches on this subject.

The Intersection between Military Justice and Equal Rights: Mutinies, Courts-martial, and Black Civil War Soldiers
Civil War History - Volume 53, Number 2, June 2007

Interestingly, William Walker, who is the poster child in the source you used, had a past history of mutiny against both white and black leaders in his unit. That doesn't negate that the issue was also brought up in other contexts, where the courts-martial demonstrated the fairness and non-discriminatory nature of the application of military justice in the whole.fairness and non-discriminatory nature of the application of military justice in the whole.? You're kidding right?

Beside the fact that they should have gave them equal pay from the start like they were promised. Don't ya think?

Shek
24 Nov 09,, 04:07
fairness and non-discriminatory nature of the application of military justice in the whole.? You're kidding right?

No, I'm not kidding. The scholarly article lays out a very compelling argument. For example, it presents a case of a mutiny where the soldiers were acquitted and the commander instead put on trial because he was an a$$hole. It also lays out some isolated examples where excessively harsh punishments weren't discriminatory in nature - both blacks and whites suffered the same under particular commanders. This would be a case where it wasn't fair, but not because of discrimination.


Beside the fact that they should have gave them equal pay from the start like they were promised. Don't ya think?

I agree that they should have, but Congress didn't appropriate the necessary funds because they used the 1862 Militia Act as the authorization, and so while the Administration (Secretary Stanton) approached the Congress in late 1863, they couldn't get legislation through until 1864 to fulfill what had been promised. Heck, maybe they should have been paid extra money since the Confederate policy was to execute them without trial if captured (a policy never rescinded but stopped after the Union promised in-kind retaliation).

Shek
26 Nov 09,, 17:39
As for something "worse than slavery", there is a grain of truth to that. For centuries Black people in the South were regarded by Whites as a class of servants and anything else was considered unnatural. As a result most Blacks in the South considered themselves to be members of their master's household - albeit as "property" - and there was no large organized movement to free all the Black slaves and give them an identity as an independent race of people. In fact, once the slaves were emancipated, the protection of their masters was lost and they became the target of persecution by the KKK and other Whites who did not like the new state of affairs.

This analysis requires that there is no benefit to freedom. Was life harsher for some former slaves in terms of material goods? Sure. Was it for all? No.


Emancipation was the perfect pretext for the Union to go to war with the South. I doubt that President Lincoln was intent on freeing Black slaves in the South on moral grounds - even though this is the version of history taught as historical fact in all US public schools.

First off, emancipation was not the pretext for mobilization after the Confederacy had fired upon a federal fort.

Second, Lincoln's position on slavery was rooted entirely on morals, and his written record reflects that as far back as it goes . However, it was packaged and sold/socialized in terms of the war effort.

Shek
26 Nov 09,, 17:40
Welcome to Bushwhacker Museum (http://www.bushwhacker.org/)

John Brown Museum (http://www.kshs.org/places/johnbrown/index.htm)

2 different views on the same topic.

John Brown was a terrorist.

The James brothers et all were simply brutal thugs.

Albany Rifles
26 Nov 09,, 17:44
John Brown was a terrorist.

The James brothers et all were simply brutal thugs.

Exactly....yet each are nearly canonized by their respective constituencies.

Crocodylus
26 Nov 09,, 20:36
This analysis requires that there is no benefit to freedom. Was life harsher for some former slaves in terms of material goods? Sure. Was it for all? No. True. For one, the Union Army stayed throughout the Reconstruction period, so there wasn't any mass starvation and things were kept pretty much in order. However, once the Union Army left the South, Blacks in general became subject to Jim Crow laws and the like. Blacks could no longer be enslaved since slavery was outlawed by the 13th Amendment, but they were still being treated as second-class citizens and therefore became subject to various forms of racial discrimination, such as the Jim Crow laws.

Not that this made them long for their former state of servitude, though.


First off, emancipation was not the pretext for mobilization after the Confederacy had fired upon a federal fort. I must have omitted something :redface: Emancipation as a pretext comes into the picture a bit later. The Union's reaction after Fort Sumter was an entirely natural one; an answer to an act of aggression by an (illegitimate) foreign state.


Second, Lincoln's position on slavery was rooted entirely on morals, and his written record reflects that as far back as it goes . However, it was packaged and sold/socialized in terms of the war effort. True. Lincoln did not want slavery to spread any further than the Southeast States and actually wanted it to become obsolete ASAP, but he also knew that the White majority would not accept Black freedmen as equals in the short term. So, Emancipation would've been a hard sell without some repackaging. Also, there was the Confiscation Act, which punished Confederate supporters by freeing their slaves without compensation to the owner.

I believe that the abolition of slavery appealed to Northerners because it would erase the advantage that the Southern States enjoyed as a result of being able to undercut Northern industry pricewise.

Shek
26 Nov 09,, 21:19
I believe that the abolition of slavery appealed to Northerners because it would erase the advantage that the Southern States enjoyed as a result of being able to undercut Northern industry pricewise.

This doesn't follow. Northerners abolished/emancipated slaves as they industrialized. While some of the states abolished slavery because of their moral convictions, in other states, it just gradually disappeared. If there was advantage to having slaves in industry, then it wouldn't have just disappeared. Given that, why would they fear Southern industrialization? If anything, disrupting Southern society would force them to seek sectors beyond agriculture, which would then mean competition.

Blue
27 Nov 09,, 01:56
The Union's reaction after Fort Sumter was an entirely natural one; an answer to an act of aggression by an (illegitimate) foreign state. Guess that depends which side you were on huh?

Nine years before the war, when lincoln was an Illinois rep, he said was secession was legal and the duty of the citizens when when they found themselves being oppressed by the fed gov. Guess when the rules are convenient you abide by them huh?

Tarek Morgen
27 Nov 09,, 02:08
After reading this (?and all the other threads here) I still have quite some trouble to understand how the South was oppressed? Which rights did they not have that the rest of the union enjoyed?

And when was Lincoln ever a Senator??

Blue
27 Nov 09,, 02:23
After reading this (?and all the other threads here) I still have quite some trouble to understand how the South was oppressed? Which rights did they not have that the rest of the union enjoyed?

And when was Lincoln ever a Senator??
My bad, I was thinking of something else while typing. He was a state rep.

In short, they where paying the majority of the taxes, they felt they where being treated unfairly by the Northern staes, ie, the fed gov, so they seceeded. Lincold flip flopped as prez because the South was fixin to be recognized as a sovereign country by other countries, so for the so-called "good of the union" they where made by force to rejoin the union at the cost of around 640,000 American lives. Course thats only one version. You'll get the other here shortly i'm sure.

Shek
27 Nov 09,, 03:11
Nine years before the war, when lincoln was an Illinois rep, he said was secession was legal and the duty of the citizens when when they found themselves being oppressed by the fed gov. Guess when the rules are convenient you abide by them huh?

Care to share that speech and the context? I think you'll find that it's actually very consistent with his arguments against Southern secession. ;)

Tarek Morgen
27 Nov 09,, 03:35
My bad, I was thinking of something else while typing. He was a state rep.

In short, they where paying the majority of the taxes, they felt they where being treated unfairly by the Northern staes, ie, the fed gov, so they seceeded. Lincold flip flopped as prez because the South was fixin to be recognized as a sovereign country by other countries, so for the so-called "good of the union" they where made by force to rejoin the union at the cost of around 640,000 American lives. Course thats only one version. You'll get the other here shortly i'm sure.

I looked into the declaration of seccession form the states of South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas. Only the first one even mentions taxes (and not in the context of being a tool of opression by the federal government). ALL of them frequently mention slavery.

So what am I missing? If for the southern states feld oppressed by the north by "having to pay the majority of taxes" why is there no mention of this in theír declarations?

Shek
27 Nov 09,, 04:15
Lincold flip flopped as prez because the South was fixin to be recognized as a sovereign country by other countries, so for the so-called "good of the union" they where made by force to rejoin the union at the cost of around 640,000 American lives. Course thats only one version. You'll get the other here shortly i'm sure.

The South required a major victory to be recognized by Britain, as it was seen as an internal affair (but watched with keen interest) initially. Napoleon III of France was ready to recognize England before that, but he would have found himself on the short end of the stick in his own backyard and so had to follow along with England. The closest that the South came to being recognized was in September of 1862, when the issue was about ready to be pushed to the floor in light of the reversals the Union faced around the map after the earlier successes in the Western Theater as well as because the cotton embargo by the South was finally beginning to force layoffs in England.

However, the Union victory at Antietam shut the door on recognition for the time being, and only a complete triumph by Lee in 1863 in light of the Emancipation Proclamation would have brought about recognition, and even then it would have been most likely only because of the Union negotiating a settlement with the CSA.

Shek
27 Nov 09,, 04:17
I looked into the declaration of seccession form the states of South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas. Only the first one even mentions taxes (and not in the context of being a tool of opression by the federal government). ALL of them frequently mention slavery.

So what am I missing? If for the southern states feld oppressed by the north by "having to pay the majority of taxes" why is there no mention of this in theír declarations?

Just read Karl Marx. He says it's all about the tariffs. Of course, I don't know if we want to trust the father of communism who viewed everything through the lens of class and economics.

Blue
27 Nov 09,, 04:24
The South required a major victory to be recognized by Britain, as it was seen as an internal affair (but watched with keen interest) initially.
I was kinda thinkin it would have happened had there actually been no war. I'm aware of the after the fact results. Was a close one wasn't it?;)

Shek
27 Nov 09,, 04:31
I was kinda thinkin it would have happened had there actually been no war. I'm aware of the after the fact results. Was a close one wasn't it?;)

Lee was pretty close to having the ANV destroyed at Antietam, if only McClellan had grabbed some sack, either at South Mountain and/or at Sharpsburg itself.

However, a Confederate victory in the Maryland campaign over the AOP would have probably meant recognition within a month.

In the absence of a war, it would have taken a while for recognition, although it's hard to fathom Davis not having Beauregard fire on the federal fort in Charleston Bay.

Blue
27 Nov 09,, 04:39
In the absence of a war, it would have taken a while for recognition, although it's hard to fathom Davis not having Beauregard fire on the federal fort in Charleston Bay.

I have always wondered why they didn't just sustain the blockade and starve them into surrender. Wasn't there one conf that was against the shelling? I can't recall his name right off, was a cabinet member of Davis' IIRC?

I think that would have had a big effect on the outcome.

Shek
27 Nov 09,, 04:59
I have always wondered why they didn't just sustain the blockade and starve them into surrender. Wasn't there one conf that was against the shelling? I can't recall his name right off, was a cabinet member of Davis' IIRC?

I think that would have had a big effect on the outcome.

They couldn't maintain a blockade against federal naval power. Lincoln made it very clear that the mission was solely to provide resupply and that the warships would be used only in the event that resupply was not allowed through.

Lincoln was brilliant with regards to Fort Sumter. His cabinet and General Scott had told him to abandon Fort Sumter, and it was Lincoln who decided to maintain the garrison there and came up with the resupply plan, which forced Davis' hand with a choice of either validating the fort as being federal land (it was, as SC had signed over the land to the government when the fort was built) and looking impotent, or firing upon the fort to prevent a logistics mission that wasn't threatening or aggressive, thereby placing the onus on starting the shooting match on the South. Davis chose the latter.

Blue
27 Nov 09,, 05:12
They couldn't maintain a blockade against federal naval power. Lincoln made it very clear that the mission was solely to provide resupply and that the warships would be used only in the event that resupply was not allowed through.

Lincoln was brilliant with regards to Fort Sumter. His cabinet and General Scott had told him to abandon Fort Sumter, and it was Lincoln who decided to maintain the garrison there and came up with the resupply plan, which forced Davis' hand with a choice of either validating the fort as being federal land (it was, as SC had signed over the land to the government when the fort was built) and looking impotent, or firing upon the fort to prevent a logistics mission that wasn't threatening or aggressive, thereby placing the onus on starting the shooting match on the South. Davis chose the latter.

Yeah. It was only 85 men, what do they matter in the big picture. They may have been killed, but as long as the war was sparked, right?:frown:

Shek
27 Nov 09,, 15:17
Yeah. It was only 85 men, what do they matter in the big picture. They may have been killed, but as long as the war was sparked, right?:frown:

It was sovereign territory for the United States of America. They had every right to be there. In the big picture, to give it up was to confer some legitmacy upon the recently seceded states. While Lincoln maneuvered Davis into poor options, he nonetheless had a choice. The fact still remains that it was the CSA that chose to start the war.

Additionally, there was no one killed in the garrison at Fort Sumter during the hours of bombardment, a testimony to the fact that an attempt to portray it as sending men off to their death is wholly inaccurate.

Blue
27 Nov 09,, 20:23
It was sovereign territory for the United States of America. They had every right to be there. In the big picture, to give it up was to confer some legitmacy upon the recently seceded states. While Lincoln maneuvered Davis into poor options, he nonetheless had a choice. The fact still remains that it was the CSA that chose to start the war.

Additionally, there was no one killed in the garrison at Fort Sumter during the hours of bombardment, a testimony to the fact that an attempt to portray it as sending men off to their death is wholly inaccurate.

My point is, against the interest of thier safety, Lincoln chose to leave them there, no matter what. The CSA said they could leave unharmed, but the where leaving one way or the other. If I was left at a literally unimportant outpost, cut off from resupply with little or no defenses, and my CiC chose to leave me there because he didn't recognize the validity of the opposing forces, I think that irresponsible in regards to the troops. But then again, Lincoln was pretty much the ends justifies the means at that point it seems to me.

Shek
27 Nov 09,, 20:44
My point is, against the interest of thier safety, Lincoln chose to leave them there, no matter what. The CSA said they could leave unharmed, but the where leaving one way or the other. If I was left at a literally unimportant outpost, cut off from resupply with little or no defenses, and my CiC chose to leave me there because he didn't recognize the validity of the opposing forces, I think that irresponsible in regards to the troops. But then again, Lincoln was pretty much the ends justifies the means at that point it seems to me.

So we shouldn't own Guantanamo Bay today, then, is your point. Essentially, Lincoln should have appeased the South because they threatened force against a federal installation.

The reality is that the outpost wasn't cut off from resupply because that was the exact mission that he was going to do, and he had the means to do it. In fact, the commander thought it was quite defensible - he abandoned a different outpost in favor of Fort Sumter. It took two days of bombardment before he finally surrendered the fort.

And again, not a single Union soldier was killed during the battle, and they were paroled immediately north. In other words, your claim that Lincoln placed the entire garrison at risk of annihilation is completely unfounded by the historical record. It's a complete strawman.

Blue
27 Nov 09,, 21:20
So we shouldn't own Guantanamo Bay today, then, is your point. Although unrelated IMO, yes. I see no need to have it there.
Essentially, Lincoln should have appeased the South because they threatened force against a federal installation. He should have had more consideration for his troops. Maintaining garrison at that fort was pointless, it was going to the CSA sooner or later.


The reality is that the outpost wasn't cut off from resupply because that was the exact mission that he was going to do, and he had the means to do it. In fact, the commander thought it was quite defensible - he abandoned a different outpost in favor of Fort Sumter. It took two days of bombardment before he finally surrendered the fort. wasn't the one attempt at re-supply ended up at the bottom of the harbor?


And again, not a single Union soldier was killed during the battle, and they were paroled immediately north. In other words, your claim that Lincoln placed the entire garrison at risk of annihilation is completely unfounded by the historical record. It's a complete strawman.

The CSA could have easily taken them prisoner or kept shelling till nothing was left. All they wanted was the Fort. The CSA was kind in letting them them go, IMO. Lincoln was willing to leave them to fate AFAIC. I cannaot concede this point sir. Those men where left alive by a benevolent opponent that just wanted them to give up the fort, nothing more. Thier CiC ordered them to stay in the hopes that the South would fire up the place and justify the need for further military action.

Bigfella
27 Nov 09,, 23:49
Sniper,

The point remains that the CSA was not compelled to shell Sumter. It wasn't threatening them. It wasn't shelling them. It was federal property. They could easily have wiated for it to actually make an aggressive move before firing a shot.

You seem a lot more upset at Lincoln than the guy responsible for the shelling - Davis. He put those lives in danger & he could probably have ended that danger with a word. He preferred a course that could have killed those men & started a war than look weak. I have heard a number of Southerners on this board & elsewhere argue that 'they just should have left us alone'. The CSA was given just that choice at Sumter.

Personally I'm p1ssed off that my uncle spent 3 years as a Japanese POW because Churchill under-resourced the defence of Malaya. The real anger, however, is directed at the japanese Empire which was doing the attacking, not the British government which put him in harm's way.

Shek
28 Nov 09,, 04:13
Although unrelated IMO, yes. I see no need to have it there. He should have had more consideration for his troops. Maintaining garrison at that fort was pointless, it was going to the CSA sooner or later.

GTMO is one of many related examples. Based on your response, we should have relinquished the base when Castro took over and demanded it back. Of course, I'm sure it came in handy a few years later when the Cuban Missile Crisis came about, although it was never planned to be a potential LP/OP for such a mission.

Should we have abandoned Berlin, never conducted the Berlin airlift? After all, West Berlin was surrounded and if the Soviets really wanted it, it would have been theirs.

Also, should we have never garrisoned South Korea and the DMZ? After all, the division up on the DMZ was never going to survive the artillery barrage with chemicals and tunneling into the rear that would have signaled the start of a war with North Korea.

The reality is that sovereign territory that sometimes doesn't hold pure military value holds a heck of a lot of political value, and since war is about politics, that's what matters. Our foreign policy throughout the COld War implemented tripwires. In fact, we still continue that policy with Korea, although that's changing as our relationship with South Korea has changed to one of equal partners in the defense of the peninsula.

Of course, in the case of Sumter, Beauregard, after seeing the fort and the miniscule damage that two days of bombardment had really done, thought that if it had been properly garrisoned and provisioned, would have been practically impregnable. Thus, while with the small garrison that Anderson had, it wasn't going to last without additional provisions/troops, Lincoln could have ordered the provisioning and garrisoning. Instead, he actually took a very innocuous course.


wasn't the one attempt at re-supply ended up at the bottom of the harbor?

No, but it is fair to point out that the first shots of the war were actually fired against an unarmed ship with provisions for Fort Sumter while Buchanan was still president (Sumter had been garrisoned for three months by Anderson under Buchanan - Anderson had abandoned a less defensible fort).


The CSA could have easily taken them prisoner or kept shelling till nothing was left. All they wanted was the Fort. The CSA was kind in letting them them go, IMO. Lincoln was willing to leave them to fate AFAIC. I cannaot concede this point sir. Those men where left alive by a benevolent opponent that just wanted them to give up the fort, nothing more. Thier CiC ordered them to stay in the hopes that the South would fire up the place and justify the need for further military action.

Actually, to have continued shelling after the white flag was raised would have been murder and completely against the conventions of war of both then and today. To call not committing murder isn't benevolent, it's simply following the rules.

Lincoln, in deciding to not strengthen the garrison, but simply to provision the fort was taking care to not provoke conflict. The fact remains that the attack on the fort was a pre-emptive attack to prevent supplies from reaching the garrison.

Lastly, what seems to be missing in your narrative is the fact that the fort was property of the United States government. Isn't demanding surrender of someone else's territory an act of war in and of itself?

Shek
28 Nov 09,, 16:22
My bad, I was thinking of something else while typing. He was a state rep.

Lincold flip flopped as prez because the South was fixin to be recognized as a sovereign country by other countries, so for the so-called "good of the union" they where made by force to rejoin the union at the cost of around 640,000 American lives. Course thats only one version. You'll get the other here shortly i'm sure.

7thsfsniper,

Here’s a neo-Confederate website that presents Lincoln’s supposed support of secession:

The Real Abe Lincoln: Abraham Lincoln on Secession (http://www.pointsouth.com/lincoln/secession.htm)


Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.

Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848
Congressional Globe, Appendix
1st Session 30th Congress, page 94

However, notice how this pseudo history provides no analysis, no context. So let’s go and grab the actual text and provide some context.


Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 1. (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=lincoln;rgn=div1;view=text;idno=lincoln1;nod e=lincoln1%3A444)

The extent of our teritory in that region depended, not on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it) but on revolution. Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,---a most sacred right---a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.

So, in the sentence before and the two sentences afterwards, you find the world revolution (emphasis mine). It becomes clear that Lincoln is speaking of revolution and not of secession. So why would this neo-Confederate website omit these three sentences? Because they want to deliberately confuse anyone looking at their website on the actual thrust of what Lincoln was saying.

We know from his first inaugural that Lincoln didn’t support secession. So now let’s examine how Lincoln would view revolution by the South. For this we need to turn back to the founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence. Here’s an excerpt from Lincoln’s oratory at Peoria during the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858 that references the exact language, and by extension, the principles found in it:


Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise (http://www.ashbrook.org/library/19/lincoln/peoria.html)

Well I doubt not that the people of Nebraska are, and will continue to be as good as the average of people elsewhere. I do not say the contrary. What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle—the sheet anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED."

***

Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for SOME men to enslave OTHERS is a "sacred right of self-government." These principles can not stand together.

We can see that Lincoln saw the Declaration on moral grounds, and for the South to revolt based on slavery was an inherent and immoral contradiction.

Thus, we can safely conclude that not only did Lincoln not support secession, but that he also didn’t support revolution in the name of maintaining and expanding slavery, and so rather than flip-flopping, we see a consistency in Lincoln’s thought on this subject over the course of nearly two decades.

In fact, Lincoln’s view on the right to revolution and secession mirror exactly that of the Father of the Constitution.


Right of Revolution: James Madison to Daniel Webster (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s14.html)

James Madison to Daniel Webster
15 Mar. 1833Writings 9:604--5

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless, with the countenance recd from certain quarters, is giving it a popular currency here which may influence the approaching elections both for Congress & for the State Legislature. It has gained some advantage also, by mixing itself with the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partizans.

It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the same authority & by the same process have converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty; or continued it with enlarged or abridged powers; or have imbodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty; or as they did by a mixed form make them one people, nation, or sovereignty, for certain purposes, and not so for others.

The Constitution of the U.S. being established by a Competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government into the usual Legislative Executive & Judiciary Departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitution; it makes the Government like other Governments to operate directly on the people; places at its Command the needful Physical means of executing its powers; and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the Constitutions & laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective & responsible Governments, under the controul of its Constituents, the people & legislatures of the States, and subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases.

It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its operation, in every respect must be precisely the same, whether its authority be derived from that of the people, in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally Competent in both; and that, without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to.

The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the Condition in which they entered into the compact; whereas if formed by the people as one community, acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact. It must not be forgotten, that compact, express or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against this principle leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism.

Blue
28 Nov 09,, 16:51
The point remains that the CSA was not compelled to shell Sumter. It wasn't threatening them. It wasn't shelling them. It was federal property. They could easily have wiated for it to actually make an aggressive move before firing a shot. But as far as the CSA was concerned, they where occupying sovereign territory of the CSA. As I said before, that perspective changes in respect to what side you are on.


You seem a lot more upset at Lincoln than the guy responsible for the shelling - Davis. Yes, because they where not Davis' men. They where Lincolns.
He put those lives in danger & he could probably have ended that danger with a word. He preferred a course that could have killed those men & started a war than look weak. I honestly think it was a mistake to shell the place. Had they waited, I think the war would have a different outcome altogether. With all matters in regards to governments, there may be things we didn't know and they may have other reasons for the actions they took.


I have heard a number of Southerners on this board & elsewhere argue that 'they just should have left us alone'. The CSA was given just that choice at Sumter. Wouldn't argue that point. Mistakes where made without a doubt, but all in all, the citizens in the south wanted nothing more than to be left alone


Personally I'm p1ssed off that my uncle spent 3 years as a Japanese POW because Churchill under-resourced the defence of Malaya. The real anger, however, is directed at the japanese Empire which was doing the attacking, not the British government which put him in harm's way.

I think that is wholly different than this situation though. Japan was conquering, the CSA was not. Genuine respects to your uncle though. I can't imagine what that was like. I can understand if he felt betrayed though.

Shek
28 Nov 09,, 17:06
But as far as the CSA was concerned, they where occupying sovereign territory of the CSA. As I said before, that perspective changes in respect to what side you are on.

But this is false. South Carolina gave up rights to Fort Sumter nearly three decades before in a legal document passed by their very own legislature. It was clearly owned by the federal government of the United States, and so to take a relativistic approach is to ignore the facts.

To claim that it was sovereign territory is simply propaganda by the Confederacy, unless they wanted to claim that the South Carolina government didn't have that right. I would be interested to see primary source citations where they claimed it and by what twisted logic they tried void the act of their very own legislature.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.htm

Tarek Morgen
28 Nov 09,, 18:41
Just read Karl Marx. He says it's all about the tariffs. Of course, I don't know if we want to trust the father of communism who viewed everything through the lens of class and economics.

To be honest I was not sure how serious you were, but since he and Engels did write a lot about the civil war while it was going on I took a look at it anyway, despite both of them were still not the communist we know today. (He stopped reporting about the Civil War to concrentrate on Das Kapital). In his articles he sees the war as one of Southern aggression (which was quite unual fpr the British Press at the time).

I looked again through the other thread:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/ancient-medieval-early-modern-ages/53230-civil-war-narrative-12.html

And yet I still can not see how the south was oppressed or taxed out. After reading the secessions statements i find it hard to see anything else then State Rights as the cause, and only this then if you considere slavery (mentioned frequently in every statement I've found) a state right. And even if you ignore the morality of slavery (or the lack thereof), how could it be a state right if the declaration of independence clearly states that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'

(If anyone has an answer for me, maybe it should be moved to the other thread since it would be more fitting to its topic)

Shek
28 Nov 09,, 19:23
To be honest I was not sure how serious you were, but since he and Engels did write a lot about the civil war while it was going on I took a look at it anyway, despite both of them were still not the communist we know today. (He stopped reporting about the Civil War to concrentrate on Das Kapital). In his articles he sees the war as one of Southern aggression (which was quite unual fpr the British Press at the time).

That was said tongue-in-cheek. Sorry for any confusion. Although I would point out that Marx had already published his manifesto over a decade earlier, and so we should expect him to see the world through an economic lens.

Crocodylus
02 Dec 09,, 04:52
This doesn't follow. Northerners abolished/emancipated slaves as they industrialized. While some of the states abolished slavery because of their moral convictions, in other states, it just gradually disappeared. If there was advantage to having slaves in industry, then it wouldn't have just disappeared. Given that, why would they fear Southern industrialization? If anything, disrupting Southern society would force them to seek sectors beyond agriculture, which would then mean competition.Industry in the North was already quite advanced by the 1850s, so even if the South did industrialize seriously, it would take time for it to catch up to the North. And, in the case that the Confederate South did retain its independence from the United States, the industrialisation thereof would've been of concern to the Union.

Slavery was on the decline in the North, mainly because large-scale farming was not as big part of the Union States' economic production as it was of that of the South. Not to mention that the temperate/continental climate and soil of the Northern States did not allow for large plantations like what existed in the subtropical South. Not only would've housing slaves been more expensive due to the adverse weather and the risk of Indian raids, but also the growing seasons were not as long as those in the South, nor was there enough rainfall to promote maximum harvest yields. (Until mass irrigation machines were invented, tapping the full potential of rich Midwestern soils was nearly impossible.)

Another - more probable - reason for the lack of slavery in the North was that having a big population of Blacks in what should be White man's land would've not been too popular. (Even though slavery was banned in the North, Blacks were still treated as second-class citizens.) For most Northerners having a few freed Blacks in their midst was better than having a burgeoning population of enslaved Blacks, as was the case in the South.

Of course, there was the Underground Railroad, but - as the name implies - it was a smuggling network to help fugitive slaves reach the North and other places where slavery was outlawed. The network was a clandestine one and being discovered by the public authorities often incurred the risk of the fugitive slave being returned to his owner in the South - at least according to a Wikipedia article on the Underground Railroad.


Due to the risk of discovery, information about routes and safe havens was passed along by word of mouth. Southern newspapers of the day were often filled with pages of notices soliciting information about escaped slaves and offering sizable rewards for their capture and return. Federal marshals and professional bounty hunters known as slave catchers pursued fugitives as far as the Canadian border.[14]

Canada was one popular destination, since slavery was outlawed there. (The British government outlawed slavery throughout the UK and its overseas territories in 1833.) Once on Canadian soil, there was no chance of fugitive slaves being returned to the South.

Industralization would've been a direct threat to slavery, which is why the Southern States were slow to adopt industrial technology beyond the cotton gin. Also, the increase in the price of land and slaves meant that cotton and other large-scale agricultural production was in the hands of a few wealthy families in the South. Industrialization and the subsequent automation of cotton production would've threatened the monopoly held by these families and so it was discouraged.

Not to mention that automation would've rendered the enslavement of Blacks redundant and therefore a social revolution of sorts would've taken place in the Confederacy.

Shek
17 Mar 11,, 00:58
The Question of Inevitability II: The Civil War | Crossroads (http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/the-question-of-inevitability-ii-the-civil-war/#more-952)


Historians who try to explain Union victory and Confederate defeat during the Civil War approach that question by asking several questions (or at least implicitly offering their answers). The first question is whether Union victory and Confederate defeat were, in fact, inevitable. Was there any way for the Confederacy to win, or was it a lost cause from the beginning?

How one answers this question shapes how one approaches the study of the Civil War … or at least it should. However one answers that question determines the next questions one asks and which issues one explores. Say you think the outcome of the war was inevitable (which is different from determining when the outcome of the war became inevitable, because that assumes that at some point it was not inevitable). If you believe that, then the study of why certain battles turned out the way they did becomes less important, because the ultimate outcome was set, anyway. It doesn’t matter whether McClellan was slow or Longstreet lost Gettysburg or Thomas was undervalued, because, whatever one may find interesting about those queries on their merits, they don’t shape the ultimate victory, because you’ve already deemed it inevitable. Thus, there’s no need for turning points or contingency. One looks instead to underlying factors such as resources to explain why it was inevitable: the issue of popular will becomes irrelevant.

However, if you do not believe the outcome of the war was inevitable, then you have to deal with actors, decisions, and events. Oh, you can talk about resources, for example, but you’ve acknowledged that the outcome was not preordained, and in fact you have to think in terms of counterfactuals as well as contingency and turning points. If certain events led to Appomattox, then different outcomes would have led to different results, and then you have to identify what made the difference. For example, I happen to think it is harder to imagine Union victory without Grant. Take Grant out, and you have to presuppose that someone else would have come along with a mix of talents and skills approximating his. Take Grant out, I’ll add, and it becomes more difficult to consider the rise of Sherman, who found in Grant his North Star.

I don’t happen to think that Union victory was inevitable. Nor do I think that the events in the East in 1863 offered a so-called turning point. If 1863 was in any way a turning point, it was because the victories at Vicksburg and Chattanooga established Grant as the coming man, and that led to the two turning points of 1864, Grant’s rise to top command and the success of his grand strategy in September 1864. The Union may have had superior resources, but Grant was the first commander to use them in coordinated fashion and to make that superiority tell.

As to how the Confederacy might have won, I’ll save that for another time.

astralis
17 Mar 11,, 14:49
things really didn't become inevitable until approx august-september 1864.

Albany Rifles
17 Mar 11,, 15:00
things really didn't become inevitable until approx august-september 1864.

I would stretch that to October 19, 1864 when the Union Army of the Shenandoah destroyed the Confederate Army of the Valley...which was really the last forces Lee had available for operational maneuver.

The fall of Atlanta followed by the great news from the Valley just a 2 weeks before the elections sealed the deal. If Early was not destroyed and was the victor on 19 OCT then it could have been seen as another Union defeat and cost Lincoln the election.

astralis
17 Mar 11,, 15:11
AR,

even a lincoln defeat wouldn't have saved the confederacy at this point. mcclellan would have continued persecuting the war, and either way, by the time lincoln was out of office in jan 1865 there wasn't much more of a war to persecute.

fall of atlanta pretty much sealed the confederacy's fate politically. before then, a very severe defeat of the union army might have been enough to either throw the democratic nomination to a copperhead or to change mcclellan's views towards a negotiated peace.

of course even if the war came to a negotiated peace by jan 1865 the confederacy would have been BADLY truncated. most likely tennessee, arkansas, and the indian territory would have remained in union hands. 50/50 chance texas goes independent. any round two, and the opening rounds of the war would probably be a US drive towards south carolina and georgia, cutting the CSA in half relatively easily.

Shek
17 Mar 11,, 17:17
AR,

even a lincoln defeat wouldn't have saved the confederacy at this point. mcclellan would have continued persecuting the war, and either way, by the time lincoln was out of office in jan 1865 there wasn't much more of a war to persecute.

A minor quibble that actually reinforces your point about the ability for Lincoln to continue to prosecute the war - inaugurations occured in March back then. Lincoln's second inauguration was 4 Mar 65. While weather would have made it difficult to have accelarated Grant's tenth offensive in the Petersburg Campaign (http://www.beyondthecrater.com/about-the-siege-of-petersburg/offensives/), this would be an interesting "what if" scenario excursion to determine if the fate of the ANV could have been sealed prior to McClellan's inauguration in the course of an accelarated timeline.

Albany Rifles
18 Mar 11,, 13:55
A minor quibble that actually reinforces your point about the ability for Lincoln to continue to prosecute the war - inaugurations occured in March back then. Lincoln's second inauguration was 4 Mar 65. While weather would have made it difficult to have accelarated Grant's tenth offensive in the Petersburg Campaign (http://www.beyondthecrater.com/about-the-siege-of-petersburg/offensives/), this would be an interesting "what if" scenario excursion to determine if the fate of the ANV could have been sealed prior to McClellan's inauguration in the course of an accelarated timeline.

I think a McClellan victory could have also brought a Democratic majority to Congress. And the Democratic Party platform did call for a negotiated settlement of the war. Now I know McClellan was more a War Democrat then a Copperhead but I am thinking of what the impact of a Federal loss at Cedar Creek would have meant from a military standpoint.

1. Lee still has Early's army as a mobile striking force.

2. The Confederate leadership, both civil and military, could have decided to switch to a guerrilla war knowing that they only had to hold on before McClellan, forced by his own party, would have to at least allow more generous terms and may even have prevented a lot of the Reconstruction events from happening.

I have no disagreement on Atlanta being the critical tipping point from the ballot box. But Early's crushing defeat at Cedar Creek removed the last option for the Confederacy. There was nothing left in the Confederates drawer militarily...especially when coupled with Thomas' wallopping of Hood at Nashville.

To use a term Choggy would appreciate...on the night of 19 OCT 64 the Confederacy was out of air speed and altitude.

astralis
18 Mar 11,, 14:35
AR,


I think a McClellan victory could have also brought a Democratic majority to Congress. And the Democratic Party platform did call for a negotiated settlement of the war. Now I know McClellan was more a War Democrat then a Copperhead but I am thinking of what the impact of a Federal loss at Cedar Creek would have meant from a military standpoint.


the issue is that the clock runs down for lincoln at march 1865. it's just very hard for me to see a scenario where the confederacy credibly hangs on until then, even with a federal loss at cedar creek. atlanta was going to fall sometime in the autumn. with the confederacy almost defeated even the copperheads would have to know that continued support for negotiation at that point would almost certainly mean political defeat, if not lynchings at the hands of enraged northern mobs.

looking at it from the southern independence POV, the "best" case scenario is where the Confederacy is still toast, but the difference being a nasty, nasty insurgency. martial law would have been extended even longer.

given northern war-weariness there's a high possibility that the north would withdraw from some of the south, and hang on to the vital ports and communication hubs at all costs. depending on how nasty the insurgency was i wouldn't be surprised if the north started to surreptiously arm freedmen to act as a counterinsurgency force, which might have turned into a race war. otherwise the north just gets out of dodge and pretends everything is okay. either way it's not going to be pretty. lee did the US-- and the south, especially- more good than he could have possibly imagined by shooting down the idea of a guerilla war.

Shek
18 Mar 11,, 14:46
As a reminder about Lincoln's determination to end the war prior to a new administration, the following incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln) with his cabinet demonstrates his resolve:


The lack of military success wore heavily on the President's re-election prospects, and many Republicans across the country feared that Lincoln would be defeated and a number began looking for a substitute. Acknowledging this fear, Lincoln wrote and signed a pledge that, if he should lose the election, he would still defeat the Confederacy before turning over the White House:[198]


This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he cannot possibly save it afterward.[199]

Albany Rifles
18 Mar 11,, 14:51
I think we arguing along the margins.

We all agree it was Atlanta...I was just making the point that the loss at Cedar Creek removed the last piece from the Confederate chessboard.

Astralis, you are right about how nasty it could have gotten...I guess my point was the Confederate loss then removed the means...the November election results removed the will.

zraver
18 Mar 11,, 17:01
I think we arguing along the margins.

We all agree it was Atlanta...I was just making the point that the loss at Cedar Creek removed the last piece from the Confederate chessboard.

Astralis, you are right about how nasty it could have gotten...I guess my point was the Confederate loss then removed the means...the November election results removed the will.

How much manpower did the CSA waste on interior security? The armies in the feild don't nearly represent the manpower than should have been available 9over a million military aged white males)

JAD_333
18 Mar 11,, 18:33
I can see Signal Knob clearly from my window just as clearly as it could be seen hereabouts before the battle of Cedar Creek. What wasn't clear to people back then was exactly where the war stood. I always have to remind myself that much of what we know now wasn't widely known back then. Modern day criticism of actions taken back then often rely on realities not known until later. But that's not always the case. Here's a letter printed in Harpers Weekly dated 6 days before the 1964 election that captures the shift in sentiment toward Lincoln. The same issue also carried an account of Sheridan victory at Cedar Creek 3 weeks before.


JUDGE VANDERPOEL UPON THE
CRISIS.

HON. AARON VANDERPOEL says; in a late letter to a Union meeting in Ulster County.

"I voted against Mr. LINCOLN in 1860, and for HORATIO SEYMOUR in 1862, but now feel called upon, by every obligation of duty and patriotism, to cast my vote for ABRAHAM LINCOLN and Mr. FENTON.

" My doctrine is that, as the rebels began the war without cause, they must end it by laying down their arms and submitting to that Government against which they have so wantonly rebelled. I can see in the election of McCLELLAN and PENDLETON nothing but the breaking up of the Union. I agree with FERNANDO WOOD, a prominent supporter of McCLELLAN, that as the Chicago nominee he is bound to carry out the principles of the Chicago platform, which has not a word of fault to find with the rebels, and goes for peace at all events, and at any price.

Battle of Cedar Creek (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1864/november/battle-cedar-creek.htm)

Albany Rifles
18 Mar 11,, 19:28
JAD

I love the note in the article just prior to the one you cite!


GENERAL SHERMAN AND THE
ARMY VOTE.
REBELS shrink from SHERMAN'S sword and Copperheads from his pen. A foolish story has been circulated that he had said ninety-nine out of every hundred soldiers in his army would vote for McCLELLAN. General SHERMAN flanks and routs the falsehood in the following letter:

"HEAD-QUARTERS, MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI, IN THE FIELD, KINGSTON, GA., Oct. 11, 1864.




"MY DEAR SIR,—There is not one word of truth in the paragraph you sent me cut from the New York Herald of September 20. I never thought, said, or wrote that McCLELLAN would get ' ninety-nine out of every hundred' votes in the army. I am as ignorant of the political bias of the men of this army as you are at a distance of a thousand miles, and I would as soon think of tampering with a soldier's religion as with his preference for men. I have not and shall not attempt to influence a vote in the coming struggle. I believe Mr. LINCOLN has done the best he could. With respect, etc. W. T. SHERMAN.

JAD_333
19 Mar 11,, 04:05
Albany:

Can't resist posting Harper's account of Sheridan's arrival at the battle of Cedar Creek. The florid language and images of glory must have excited readers back then. It does me. One has to smile imagining Custer lifting Sheridan off his feet and spinning him around at the celebration after the battle. This was as good as it gets in a time when there was no TV, radio or film to stir people's emotions.



PHIL SHERIDAN RIDING TO THE FRONT.

WE give on our first page a sketch of General SHERIDAN'S arrival on the field October 19. The victory gained at Cedar Creek that day surpassed in interest the victory gained precisely one month earlier at Winchester. It was a victory following upon the heels of apparent reverse, and therefore reflecting peculiar credit on the brave commander to whose timely arrival upon the field the final success of the day must be attributed.

The General was at Winchester in the early morning when the enemy attacked—fifteen miles distant from the field of operations. General WRIGHT was in command. The enemy had approached under cover of a heavy fog, and flanking the extreme right of the Federal line, held by CROOK'S Corps, and attacking in the centre, had thrown the entire line into confusion, and driven it several miles. The stragglers to the rear were fearfully numerous, and the enemy was pushing on, turning against the Federals a score of guns already captured from them.

This was the situation a little before noon when SHERIDAN came on the field, riding, says one of his staff, so that the devil himself could not have kept up. A staff-officer meeting him pronounced the situation of the army to be " awful."

'Pshaw," said SHERIDAN, "it's nothing of the sort It's all right, or we'll fix it right !"

SHERIDAN hastened to his cavalry on the extreme left. Galloping past the batteries," says the World correspondent, " to the extreme left of the line held by the cavalry , he rode to the front, took off his hat and waved it, while a cheer went up from the ranks not less hearty and enthusiastic than that which greeted him after the battle of Winchester. Generals rode out to meet him, officers waved their swords, men threw up their hats in an extremity of glee. General CUSTER, discovering SHERIDAN at the moment he arrived, rode up to him, threw his arms around his neck, and kissed him on the cheek. Waiting for no other parley than simply to exchange greeting, and to say, ' This retreat must be stopped ! Sheridan broke loose and began galloping down the lines, along the whole front of the army. Every where the enthusiasm caused by his appearance was the same."

The line was speedily reformed; provost marshals brought in stragglers by the scores ; the retreating army turned its face to the foe. An attack just about to be made was repulsed, and the tide of battle turned. Then SHERIDAN'S time was come. A cavalry charge was ordered against right and left flank of the enemy, and then a grand advance of the three infantry corps from left to right on the Enemy's centre. " On through Middletown," says the correspondent above quoted, " and beyond, the enemy hurried, and the Army of the Shenandoah pursued. The roar of musketry now had a gleeful, dancing sound. The guns fired shafted salutes of victory. CUSTER and MERRITT, charging in on right and left, doubled up the flanks of the foe, taking prisoners, slashing, killing, driving as they went. The march of the infantry was more majestic and more terrible. The lines of the foe swayed and broke before it every where. Beyond Middletown, on the battle-field fought over in the morning, their columns were completely overthrown and disorganised. They fled along the pike and over the fields like sheep."

Thus on through Strasburg with two brigades of calvary at their heels. Two thousand prisoners were gathered together, though there was not a sufficient guard to send them all to the rear. The guns lost in the morning were recaptured, and as many more taken, making fifty in all, and, according, to SHERIDAN'S report, the enemy reached Mount Jackson without an organized regiment.

The scene at SHERIDAN'S head-quarters at night after the battle was wildly exciting. "General CUSTER arrived about 9 o'clock. The first thing he did was to hug General SHERIDAN with all his might, lifting him in the air, whirling him around and around, with the shout : By ----, we've cleaned them out and got the guns ! ' Catching sight of General TORBERT, CUSTER went through the same proceeding with him, until TORBERT was forced to cry out : ` There, there, old fellow ; don't capture me !'"

SHELRIDAN'S ride to the front, October 19, 1864, will go down in history as one of the most important and exciting events which have ever given interest to a battle-scene ; and to this event will be attributed the victory of the day, Says General GRANT, " Turning what bid fair to be a disaster into a glorious victory stamps SHERIDAN what I have always thought him, one of the ablest of Generals."


(I've read in later accounts that Sheridan didn't arrive from Winchester to an "awful" situation. Gen Wright had already stabilized Union lines and was preparing a counterattack. Sheridan did, however, restore union morale and led a vigorous counterattack. Harper's reporting isn't at fault, as Sheridan's
dispatches immediately after the battle made it seem he had saved the day.)

Albany Rifles
19 Mar 11,, 05:46
JAD

I am glad the more recent scholarship give Wright and Getty much more credit than Sheridan was willing to give them.

While a stirring passage, not the best history!!!