When Was the American Civil War a Done Deal?

[Blue]

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.

[Albany Rifles]

Welcome to Bushwhacker Museum

John Brown Museum

2 different views on the same topic.

[JAD_333]

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]

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]

Jad

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

Great Minds Think Alike!!!!

;)

[Ironduke]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Shek]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.