When Was the American Civil War a Done Deal?

[Bluesman]

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.

Might as well vote for the Taliban.

[Bluesman]

I don't think all Dems are bad though.

I do.

[Bluesman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.;)