WT: Southern Discomfort: U.S. Army seeks removal of Lee, ‘Stonewall’ Jackson honors

[twa]

It means that six confederate states chose not to mention any reasons at all. 

 

Far as I'm aware, I linked you to the documents listing the reason for secession, of every single state which chose to list their reason. 

 

You read them? 

 

You think Lincoln deciding to send troops into the the states that had seceded was not a major reason for the last 4 to do so after his choice?  (Va being one of those)

[JMS]

It means that six confederate states chose not to mention any reasons at all. 

 

Far as I'm aware, I linked you to the documents listing the reason for secession, of every single state which chose to list their reason. 

 

You read them? 

 

Really?   Just succeeded without any reason?  Let's examine that... Take Virginia for example..   We succeeded in April 17, 1861

4 months after South Carolina succeeded...  Why do you think we waited so long?  4 long months..  What happened between December of 1860 and April 17 1861?  

 

April 12-14 1861 Fort Sumpter.   

April 15 -  Lincoln issues a quota for all union states not in succession including Virginia for "for troops to invade and coerce" the secessionist states.

 

 

War Department, Washington, April 15, 1861.

 

To His Excellency the Governor of Virginia: Sir: Under the act of Congress for calling forth "militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, repel invasions, etc.," approved February 28, 1795, I have the honor to request your Excellency to cause to be immediately detached from the militia of your State the quota designated in the table below, to serve as infantry or rifleman for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged. Your Excellency will please communicate to me the time, at or about, which your quota will be expected at its rendezvous, as it will be met as soon as practicable by an officer to muster it into the service and pay of the United States.

— Simon Cameron, Secretary of War.

 

 

 

Executive Department, Richmond, Va., April 15, 1861.

 

Hon. Simon Cameron, Secretary of War:

 

Sir: I have received your telegram of the 15th, the genuineness of which I doubted. Since that time I have received your communications mailed the same day, in which I am requested to detach from the militia of the State of Virginia "the quota assigned in a table," which you append, "to serve as infantry or rifleman for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged." In reply to this communication, I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object - an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795 - will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and, having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the administration has exhibited toward the South.

— Respectfully, John Letcher

Governor of Virginia

 

We know slavery was the basis of the civil war, and the basis of Virginia's support of the south.. but slavery didn't move Virginia to succeed until the Union moved to squash states rights.   The convention Virginia called to decide secession had run for 4 months and only reached a decision after these two actions.   The first resolution of Virgina's succession proclaimation asserted states rights.. The 2nd and 4th of the 14 resolution proclaimation dealt with Slavery...

 

Proposals Adopted by the Virginia Succession Convention of 1861

 

1. The first resolution asserted states’ rights per se;
2. the second was for retention of slavery;
3. the third opposed sectional parties;
4. the fourth called for equal recognition of slavery in both territories and non-slave states;
5. the fifth demanded the removal of federal forts and troops from seceded states;
6. the sixth hoped for a peaceable adjustment of grievances and maintaining the Union;
7. the seventh called for Constitutional amendments to remedy federal and state disputes;
8. the eighth recognized the right of secession;
9. the ninth said the federal government had no authority over seceded states since it refused to recognize their withdrawal;
10. the tenth said the federal government was empowered to recognize the Confederate States;
11. the eleventh was an appeal to Virginia’s sister states;
12. the twelfth asserted Virginia’s willingness to wait a reasonable period of time for an answer to its propositions, providing no one resorted to force against the seceded states;
13. the thirteenth asked United States and Confederate States governments to remain peaceful;
14. the fourteenth asked the border slave states to meet in conference to consider Virginia’s resolutions and to join in Virginia’s appeal to the North

 

1.  

 

 

Far as I'm aware, I linked you to the documents listing the reason for secession, of every single state which chose to list their reason. 

 

You read them? 

 

I did,  very cool post.  I very much enjoyed it.  It only dealt with 4 states.

 

Freaking South Carolina...

[Larry]

You think Lincoln deciding to send troops into the the states that had seceded was not a major reason for the last 4 to do so after his choice?  (Va being one of those)

 

I freely confess that I'm not aware of that timeline. 

 

I confess to having trouble swallowing the assertion that some states' reasons for the civil war was "well, some other state seceded over slavery, and the US "invaded" them, so I decided I wanted to do it, too". 

 

Which states were these? 

[JMS]

 

Then you came to the wrong conclusion. 

 

And my "made up offensive characterization of their argument"? 

 

Yeah, I ladled it on really thick.  Intentionally so, to make it very clear that it was intentional exaggeration. 

 

Then the misunderstanding is mine, and I apologize if I offended you in my response.

[JMS]

You think Lincoln deciding to send troops into the the states that had seceded was not a major reason for the last 4 to do so after his choice?  (Va being one of those)

 

You beat me to it...  Good for you...  

I freely confess that I'm not aware of that timeline. 

 

I confess to having trouble swallowing the assertion that some states' reasons for the civil war was "well, some other state seceded over slavery, and the US "invaded" them, so I decided I wanted to do it, too". 

 

Which states were these? 

 

Virginia, Arkansas North Carolina and Tennessee.   in that order were the last confederate states to succeed.

[Larry]

We know slavery was the basis of the civil war, and the basis of Virginia's support of the south.. but slavery didn't move Virginia to succeed until the Union moved to squash states rights.   The convention Virginia called to decide secession had run for 4 months and only reached a decision after these two actions.   The first resolution of Virgina's succession resolution asserted states rights.. The 2nd and 4th of the 14 resolutions given dealt with Slavery...

The Union did not in any way "quash states rights". (At least, not until the Proclamation.)

Sorry. The only way to try to push the revisionist history to claim that the civil war was about "states rights", is if you assume that "states rights" is a synonym for "slavery".

Every state which declared a reason for secession, stated that one of their reasons for doing so, was the fact that slave owners wanted to take their slaves into free states, and have them remain slaves.

This isn't a position of states rights. This is a position of endorsing slavery.

I think that every state that listed their reasons, complained that they wanted the federal government to mandate that, when new southern states were added to the union, that said states MUST be slave states.

Again, this isn't a position of state's rights. This is a position of demanding that slavery must be imposed, by the federal government.

And, lastly:

In the USA, slavery was a state's decision.

In the CSA, slavery was mandated at the federal level.

Again. This is not a "states rights" position. This is a "pro slavery" position.

 

----------

 

Proposals Adopted by the Virginia Convention of 1861

 

1. The first resolution asserted states’ rights per se;
2. the second was for retention of slavery;
3. the third opposed sectional parties;
4. the fourth called for equal recognition of slavery in both territories and non-slave states;
5. the fifth demanded the removal of federal forts and troops from seceded states;
6. the sixth hoped for a peaceable adjustment of grievances and maintaining the Union;
7. the seventh called for Constitutional amendments to remedy federal and state disputes;
8. the eighth recognized the right of secession;
9. the ninth said the federal government had no authority over seceded states since it refused to recognize their withdrawal;
10. the tenth said the federal government was empowered to recognize the Confederate States;
11. the eleventh was an appeal to Virginia’s sister states;
12. the twelfth asserted Virginia’s willingness to wait a reasonable period of time for an answer to its propositions, providing no one resorted to force against the seceded states;
13. the thirteenth asked United States and Confederate States governments to remain peaceful;
14. the fourteenth asked the border slave states to meet in conference to consider Virginia’s resolutions and to join in Virginia’s appeal to the North

 

1)  Thanks for the info. 

 

2)  Am I the only one seeing a disconnect, here, in the 9th item?  "the federal government had no authority over seceded states since it refused to recognize their withdrawal"? 

 

I assume that their assertion was that well, the federal government would have authority over them, if it did recognize their withdrawal? 

 

 

----------

 

But yeah, I certainly agree that whether states (or subordinate jurisdictions, for that matter) had the right to declare themselves independent, was certainly a subject which could at least be debated. 

 

(In fact, I suspect I would have agreed with the right to secede.  After all, the holiest day in our nation, so to speak, was when we supposedly did exactly that.  It's pretty much the first precedent in our nation's history.) 

[zoony]

No it is definitely states rights.

States rights to keep slavery legal

But yah, states rights.

[JMS]

The Union did not in any way "quash states rights". (At least, not until the Proclamation.)

 

The union ordered Virginia to provide troops in order to invade and coerce southern secessionist states to rejoin the union.  Such action was to militarily "quash states rights"....     or was that the Proclamation were alluded too?

[Predicto]

  Or are you talking about every sitting President of the United States to achieve office post Civil War through President Wilson 1913?   Since every successful presidential candidate after the civil war made the pilgrimage to Charlotte North Carolina to meet with, shake hands, and sought the endorsement of Mary Anna Jackson,  The widow of the confederacy....   Stonewall Jackson's widow.    Damned Confederate Apologists....

 

 

 

Yeah, I'm not sure that this proves anything other than the fact that politicians will kiss anyone's butt if it will get them votes, and that it was deemed necessary to kiss certain butts to keep old animosities from stirring back up.   

 

The fact that we as a nation catered to the romantic mythology of the glorious Lost Cause for political reasons doesn't mean that it was a good thing.  It was a practical thing.  

[JMS]

In the USA, slavery was a state's decision.

In the CSA, slavery was mandated at the federal level.

 

Perhaps,  but that was changing very quickly.   The United States was expanding westward and the folks settling those states were not choosing to be slave states as was their right under the Kansas Nebraska Act.   This meant that the writing was on the wall,  the Slave states would loose their balance of power in the senate and would no longer be able to defend slavery.   After Kansas Nebraska the writing was on the wall.. slavery would end..  it was only a matter of time...

 

This is the reason why Lincoln would have allowed slavery to continue to avoid the civil war.   Everybody knew the days of slavery in the US was over.

 

Again. This is not a "states rights" position. This is a "pro slavery" position.

 

Again,  you aren't going to get the majority of the southern people who did not own slaves to go to war and die in order to defend the wealthy s rights, who did.   So the south sold the war to their people on states rights.   That sung and allowed secessionists to gain support.    But as you say,  it was the state right to own slaves which was at stake.

[Larry]

No it is definitely states rights.

States rights to keep slavery legal

But yah, states rights.

 

States rights to keep slavery legal in other states. 

[JMS]

Yeah, I'm not sure that this proves anything other than the fact that politicians will kiss anyone's butt if it will get them votes, and that it was deemed necessary to kiss certain butts to keep old animosities from stirring back up.  

 

Which I would argue is exactly the same motivation to hang those pictures in the first place..

 

The fact that we as a nation catered to the romantic mythology of the glorious Lost Cause for political reasons doesn't mean that it was a good thing.  It was a practical thing.  

 

I don't know about glorious lost causes.   I think it's more about the south put their full faith and devotion into that war and elevated their successful generals to the status of gods.   They carried with them all of the south's hopes dreams and chances for salvation.   That they tried, were successful for a time; and ultimately failed makes them revered respected and admired.   To dishonor them is offensive..   I think those trying to stitch the country back together embraced this and used it to help reconstruction and re-unite the union.

 

Lee was an honorable guy..  He didn't fight to preserve slavery,  he opposed slavery as did Longstreet and Stonewall Jackson..   Of the Souths great generals only Jeb Steward  favored slavery.   Lee fought because he would not fight against Virginia...   When General Winfield Scott himself a native Virginian offered the command of the Union Army..   Lee contemplated remaining neutral and not assisting either side.   Scott told him that he would have to serve the union and fight against Virginia or be branded a secessionist.   So Lee committed for the south..   There is much to be admired in Lee.    There is a lot to be admired in those who were in a position to know they were committing to a loosing cause..  at least a severely handicapped cause simple because they thought it was the right thing to do.

States rights to keep slavery legal in other states. 

 

Yes that's very true...  I don't know so much as that being the cause of the succession;  but it was among the leading strategies to defend slavery politically.   The fugitive slave act in effect made slavery legal in the north and this drove many in the north into abolitionist fever and was a leading cause for why the Union elected it's first President from a party founded on the principles of abolition.

 

But here you have to understand the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a compromise which the Anti Slave States had accepted.    In exchange the Slave States had accepted popular sovereignty to decide the issue of slavery among the new emerging western states populated mostly by folks who didn't want slavery.    California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah would be organized and permitted into the union without any legislative conditions relating to slavery....  

[Larry]

The union ordered Virginia to provide troops in order to invade and coerce southern secessionist states to rejoin the union.  Such action was to militarily "quash states rights"....     or was that the Proclamation were alluded too?

 

Only if you assert that declaring war against the US is a "states right". 

 

And last I checked, the Commander in Chief of the US military does not need permission from the Governor of Virginia to send the US army into battle against declared enemies of the US.  That power resides with the Congress, and the President. 

 

I think that's in the Constitution. 

 

----------

 

No, I'm referring to Lincoln's famous Proclamation. 

 

Which I freely announce was very anti-states rights, and, IMO, unconstitutional, too.  But then, I think Lincoln probably damaged the Constitution more than any other time in our history.  (Although IMO, the Japanese internment camps were kinds close.) 

 

(Remembering the lines from 2010:  "He evoked Lincoln.  Whenever a President's gonna get us into some serious ****, they always use Lincoln.") 

 

(I have my own personal version of Godwin's Law:  Any time somebody uses Lincoln's suspension of habeas, or the internment camps, as legal precedent, said person is wrong, and he knows it.")

 

(And I think that what Congress did, to get those Amendments and Reconstruction passed, was outright Treason, too.  "I refuse to seat any legislators from your state unless your state agrees to amend the Constitution"?) 

 

----------

 

I've got a whole lot of problems with a lot of the things Lincoln did. 

 

I'm willing to cut the guy a whole lot of slack, because I think what he did was necessary to preserve the nation.  (I think that, if we allow the nation to fragment every time one state doesn't like the way a national election goes, then today the US looks like Europe, Part II.)  And I think that the US, and the world, are a better place, because the US remained whole. 

 

And because it happened a long time ago.  (And I believe that society benefits if there's what I think of as an "international statute of limitations":  After a certain time (I propose 30 years, but I'd be willing to go as long as 50), then it doesn't matter if something horrible was done, it's history, now, and people are going on with their lives.) 

 

And because it worked. 

 

But yeah, intellectually, logically, he did a whole bunch of things that I really think should be declared "these things can not be cited as precedent". 

[Going Commando]

I wonder how realistic Lee considered a Confederate victory. He had to know all the elements going against them (supply and manpower issues being chief amongst them). Also, what was the end game in Lee's mind? I'm not a Civil War history buff much at all but I'm sure someone here can answer this. Was the end goal for Lee an entirely new country or did he want to bring the nation back together eventually after victory? And I wonder, if the South had won, would there have been more wars down the road?

Warning, very very long post coming. Your question involves a lot of information.

I think the Confederate leadership saw victory as realistic. Why wouldn't they? They almost won several times.

Their war objectives were more limited and easier to obtain than the North's, so their disadvantages in industry and manpower weren't as limiting as it seems. The Union had to have massive advantages to man power to be on an even footing to obtain their war objectives because they were fighting a war of conquest and had to hold territory, maintain a massive blockade, and open up new fronts. For the CSA on the other hand, the war was a defensive action and all it would take to win is to have the conflict drag on until foreign intervention could be secured or Northern war weariness could pressure the government into seeking an armistice. Both of those things were extremely close to happening at multiple points in the war, and if events on the battlefield had gone a little differently, they might have.

And I think it's pretty clear that the Confederate troops were flat out better than the Northern troops early in the conflict. Better leadership. Troops who were more familiar with the nitty gritty of soldiering like riding and shooting. More motivated, etc.

Lee's end game was an armistice. If the North agreed to any cessation of hostilities, everyone knew that would be the de facto end of the war. The North wouldn't have the popular support to remobilize and get the war machine up and running again. That would have let the CSA consolidate itself and gain legitimacy in the eyes of the great powers of the world.

And yes that would have been two entirely different countries. Probably the initial border would be the confederate states below the Mason Dixon line west to Missouri, then from there the 36th parallel stretching across the continent. Maybe not into California though, which was already consolidating itself as part of the US by the time of the war. Plus you would probably see Cuba a Confederate state today. Maybe Nicaragua too. Cutoff to the north, I think the CSA would have rapidly expanded their power and territory to the South into Central and South America in order to cut off U.S. expansion southwards.

I think there probably would have been subsequent wars between the USA and the CSA because they would have been the dominant rival powers of the American hemisphere. They would have had competing interests, competing territorial and imperial ambitions. I don't know that we would have seen another total war like the Civil War. But there would probably have been cold wars, diplomatic wars, proxy wars, and espionage wars. Sort of like how the great powers of Europe fought each other during the 19th century.

The worst thing that would have come from a Southern victory is the survival and expansion of Slavery.

The second worst thing would have been the European great powers (France, a newly unified Germany, England, and Russia) gaining a ton of influence and power in the American Hemisphere. I doubt they could have proved an existential threat to the U.S. at this point in history, but they could have certainly weakened us a great deal.

I don't think most Americans realize just how close Europe was to getting involved in our war, and indeed gaining a major foothold on the continent through Mexico and Canada. Basically William Seward's incredible diplomatic skill and effort saved our asses. That and the idiosyncrasies of the leaders of the European great powers. A worse man than Seward as Secretary of State probably means France officially recognizes the CSA and gets involved, forcing mediation between the North and South with or without the help of England. Napoleon III was begging Britain to go into a joint effort to force mediation from the very beginning of the war. And at one point in the war, G.B. and France actually had a plan drawn up with Russia to propose mediation and were just waiting for a crippling Northern loss in battle. Then I think Antietam happened and a concurrent crisis in Poland flared up and they had to postpone their plans and turn their attention back to Europe. If the North loses Antietam, they would have lost the War. Same for Gettysburg the next year.

Napoleon III harbored his Grand Design to establish a satellite monarchy in Mexico under a Hapsburg ruler. He wanted to restore French power in the Americas to what it had been before French defeat in the Napoleonic Wars. The revolution against the Benito Juarez regime and then the break out of the American Civil War was his opportunity and he suckered Maximilian into sailing to Mexico with the French Army and established him as the ruler of Mexico. But his rule was based on French bayonets and would only last so long as the U.S. was paralyzed by their war. For his scheme to work, he desperately needed the South to win and support his Grand Design. And in fact, the CSA pledged support for Napoleon's Mexican venture because they in return desperately needed official recognition from France and hoped for an eventual alliance. Maximilian too begged Napoleon to give the CSA official recognition, pretty much everyone but Napoleon realized this was the only chance for his Mexican scheme to succeed.

But for some reason Napoleon III dragged his feet and didn't give the CSA recognition, and didn't realize his mistake until it was too late in the war for France to effectively render aid to the South. We can thank Seward's diplomatic efforts towards France for that. And English recalcitrance and war weariness. Seward forcefully threatened the French and yet simultaneously maintained cordial relations with them. It was pretty remarkable. And it helped paralyze Napoleon from acting in his clear best interest. Hell Seward's diplomacy even kept England and France from selling the Confederacy a fleet of Ironclads their shipyards had started building for them. If the CSA gets those Ironclads, they would have destroyed the Union blockade easily.

And England was very reluctant about getting into another big foreign war after their experience in the Crimean War less than a decade before. So that probably saved us too.

Napoleon did not want to get involved in the War without Britain. He was (justifiably) afraid the English would leave France in a lurch if they went ahead unilaterally. And France was tempered by their experience in the Crimean War too.

Oddly enough, it doesn't seem like England was in a huge hurry to get involved in the war. They would not act before a decisive Southern victory on the battlefield, and repeatedly told the Southern emissaries so. Their was the Trent Affair which almost got Europe involved, but Seward diffused that pretty quickly. It's odd because they had just as big an interest in seeing a Confederate victory as France. The USA had just undergone about five decades of prodigious expansion and become the overwhelmingly dominant power in the hemisphere. This was a major threat to British Colonial interests in the region, and more importantly, British naval supremacy of the Atlantic.

I think a big reason why is the English were very carefully watching what was happening with Prussia and the German Confederation. Germany was unifying at about the same time and the English have usually seemed to view the consolidation of German power as an existential threat. The buildup of German Naval power was particularly threatening. That's something that's always perplexed the German's too. See to them, they didn't understand why the English were hell bent on preventing Germany from doing this while not caring about the much greater American threat to British sea power growing on the other side of the Atlantic.

And indeed, an alliance rather than rivalry between Britain and a newly minted Germany was actually really natural. For one thing, England and Germany share the same racial and linguistic heritage and they share a rivalry with the Latin and Slavic powers that goes back centuries. Queen Victoria herself was German, from Hanover, and her daughter was the German Empress and Queen of Prussia after her marriage to the Prussian King Frederick III.

But for some reason, it didn't happen. And British fear of Germany very much played into our favor because it pushed them into a very friendly relationship with us.

For one thing, the North Sea is right next to the British home islands so a rival Germany navy here would have been a major threat.

For another thing, Britain's chummy relationship with the U.S. had been very beneficial to them since end of the Napoleonic wars. That was the point where French power in the Americas was essentially expelled. And the Americans had been systematically driving out Spanish power in the hemisphere, which was good for Britain. We were driving back the "Latins" for them. Britain was left the sole European great power with a presence in the hemisphere. And so they had the dominant commercial relationship with the U.S. And oddly enough, the English were actually the ones who had been enforcing the Monroe doctrine since it was issued decades before. We certainly didn't have the Navy to back it up for at least half a century. So they used theirs. It was majorly in their interests to keep France, Spain, and Russia out of the hemisphere for us. That's where the "Special Relationship" really begins germination.

Plus there was also a shared racial and cultural connection between England and the U.S. so alliance was natural and easy.

And finally, the English were the first to realize that the U.S. was potentially the greatest of the great powers in the world. They understood that there was no rival great power in the hemisphere to check our growth. They believed we'd extend our influence over the entire hemisphere and develop a MASSIVE power base. Which we did.

And so their strategy for dealing with this? Become our friends. They've maintained a policy of support and appeasement to the U.S. pretty consistently for almost 200 years. And it's worked spectacularly well for them. We've been their check on the expansion of German, French, Japanese, and Russian colonial power in the New World and the Pacific, and/or hegemony in Europe since the 1860s. We've reliably guaranteed the status quo for them, which is what they wanted.

So Britain was very concerned about making an enemy out of the U.S. by getting involved in the Civil War. They wouldn't do it without an assurance of success. And so they required a decisive Southern military victory as a prerequisite for recognition and mediation. A Confederate victory would have been great for them because it'd establish a rival great power in the region to check U.S. expansion. But they weren't about to stick their own necks out to try and make it happen. They weren't about to have the South lose and make bitter enemies out of us and push us into the sphere of influence of someone like Russia.

Little known fact, the U.S. and Russia actually had a very cordial relationship during the time and shared a lot of interests in and around the Pacific. And the British were very afraid of Russia and viewed it as their #1 threat for most of the past couple centuries, only briefly interrupted by German and French attempts at establishing continental hegemony.

So there you have it, a Southern victory was certainly possible and it would have been a geopolitical disaster for the U.S. The complete consolidation of American power and the lack of a rival power in our hemisphere is why we're THE greatest geopolitical power in the world, and why the globe is unipolar today. That simply doesn't happen if Europe gets their fingers in the continent, or our power gets divided into two rival nations. Just imagine what it looks like if the CSA wins and goes into a joint venture with the French for control of North America south of the 36 parallel. That means no isthumian canal in Central America for the U.S. Or probably one to be controlled by France and the CSA. That means American sea power would be completely divided and cut off in the Pacific and Atlantic. How does the U.S. consolidate their power from the West Coast and the Pacific without free passage in the hemisphere and a canal? Does that mean Russia and/or Japan become the dominant powers in the Pacific then? Would China be today?

The world would be a drastically different place today.

[JMS]

Only if you assert that declaring war against the US is a "states right". 

 

And last I checked, the Commander in Chief of the US military does not need permission from the Governor of Virginia to send the US army into battle against declared enemies of the US.  That power resides with the Congress, and the President. 

 

I think that's in the Constitution. 

 

But that's just it.   They weren't declared enemies of the United States.   They were States which had freely voted on joining the union and believed they therefore had the right,  in the absence of any agreement stating otherwise,  to leave the union if consensus existed.    Firing on Fort Sumter inside the territory of South Carolina was simply defending their states integrity.

 

From the South's perspective it was Lincoln who invaded the South with first the attack on the City of Fairfax, Fairfax Virginia; and then the march on Richmond resulting in the first battle of Mananas....

[Larry]

My reasoning is quite a bit simpler. 

 

I assume that, if the South knew they were doomed to lose, they wouldn't have fought. 

 

Therefore, I conclude that they must have figured their odds were at least 50-50.  For all kinds of potential reasonings.  (Maybe the North won't have the votes for military action.  Maybe they'll vote for it, but quit if they don't win quickly.  Maybe we'll get help from our trading partners.) 

 

Maybe they recognized the possibility of losing.  But, to me, they couldn't possibly have known it.  (Or they wouldn't have done it.) 

[Larry]

But that's just it.   They weren't declared enemies of the United States.   They were States which had freely voted on joining the union and believed they therefore had the right,  in the absence of any agreement stating otherwise,  to leave the union if consensus existed.    Firing on Fort Sumter inside the territory of South Carolina was simply defending their states integrity.

 

From the South's perspective it was Lincoln who invaded the South with first the attack on the City of Fairfax, Fairfax Virginia; and then the march on Richmond resulting in the first battle of Mananas....

 

Did the British start the Revolutionary war, when they "invaded" a nation called the US?  Or did the US start it, with their "Dear George" letter? 

 

(Although, as I've commented, I think a case could be made that the US asserts that our nation existed, from the moment that we announced that it did.  We celebrate the declaration, not the Brit's surrender.  I can certainly see the legal argument that the US recognized a "right of secession", because that was the first official thing that our nation did.) 

[JMS]

I wonder how realistic Lee considered a Confederate victory. He had to know all the elements going against them (supply and manpower issues being chief amongst them). Also, what was the end game in Lee's mind? I'm not a Civil War history buff much at all but I'm sure someone here can answer this. Was the end goal for Lee an entirely new country or did he want to bring the nation back together eventually after victory? And I wonder, if the South had won, would there have been more wars down the road?

 

Lee was the model of the greatest general of his time.   Lee was tactically brilliant and confident he was smarter than anybody he would go up against.    I think Lee knew he was in for a hard fight,  but I think he believed he could win,  hell he almost did win before Grant assumed the leadership of Union forces.   After that Grant changed the model of what a great general was and Lee had no answers for the strategy Grant employed.

 

Also, what was the end game in Lee's mind?

 

For the Confederacy they key to victory was capturing Washington DC.   The Confederacy could not win a war of attrition and Lee at least understood that.     The first and best opportunity for the south to win the war occurred after the battle of First Manasas.    The Union forces were in total disarray falling back on Washington.   The Confederacy had defeated them with one army Corps.   The Confederacy had another entire army Corps in Reserve which if committed could have sacked Washington and ended the war.   Stonewall Jackson who was wounded at first Mananas said he could have taken the capital with 200 men.    General Joseph E. Johnston refused to give the order.

 

The second chance would have come if the South could have defeated the Union at Gettysburg.   If the south had won Gettysburg they would have surrounded Washington and compelled an end to the war...

 

 

Was the end goal for Lee an entirely new country or did he want to bring the nation back together eventually after victory? And I wonder,

 

I think Lee was a servant to his state...  Their goal was his goal...  If he had won it would have meant two independent nations.

 

 

 

And I wonder, if the South had won, would there have been more wars down the road?

 

And this is ultimately why Lincoln fought.   To save the Union.  He could not permit an independent confederacy..    In the Federalist Papers our founding fathers from both the North and the South warned against secession.     They believed if the country broke apart it would mean 1000 years of continuous warfare as Europe had just suffered though.   Lincoln fought to preserve the Union.

 

 

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

Abraham Lincoln to Newspaperman Horace Greely editor of the influential New York Tribune, had just addressed an editorial to Lincoln called "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," making demands and implying that Lincoln's administration lacked direction and resolve.

 

Executive Mansion,

Washington, August 22, 1862.

 

Hon. Horace Greeley:

Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

 

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

 

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

 

Yours,

A. Lincoln.

[JMS]

Did the British start the Revolutionary war, when they "invaded" a nation called the US?  Or did the US start it, with their "Dear George" letter? 

 

(Although, as I've commented, I think a case could be made that the US asserts that our nation existed, from the moment that we announced that it did.  We celebrate the declaration, not the Brit's surrender.  I can certainly see the legal argument that the US recognized a "right of secession", because that was the first official thing that our nation did.) 

 

I would say we started the Revolutionary war with our Declaration of Independence.   The reason why I don't think that decides the issue with regards to the Civil War is because the Colonies never voted to join the British empire.   They were British subjects when they arrived and remained so....   everything they had came from the crown and they crowns subjects never had any rights to join or succeed.

 

The South would say they were free men residing in an independent colony when they decided to sign onto the Constitution;  and never gave up the right to leave..  Thus succeeding was legal in the latter case and illegal in the former..

My reasoning is quite a bit simpler. 

 

I assume that, if the South knew they were doomed to lose, they wouldn't have fought.

 

The south had more and better officers especially in the Calvary.    The south also had superior troops....    It's reasonable they thought they had some chance to win;  even though the Union had massive edge in industry,  finances, and population.

[Going Commando]

Good. Always been a pet peeve of mine. Why celebrate traitors? They might have been great generals and even great men (though that's debatable), but the bottom line, above all else, is that they were traitors. Don't see how you could argue otherwise.

Jackson and Lee deserve to be honored because they were two of the very greatest soldiers in American history. Also the Confederate leadership was pardoned and Lee had his citizenship restored, he isn't a traitor. I'm not interested in sanitizing or ignoring the history of the Civil War for p.c. reasons. I don't really care what side of an enormous and complicated political conflict they ended up on. They were soldiers and men of honor that did their duty. And they were great men, the country would be lucky to make more men and soldiers like them. Personally, I admire them the same as I admire Lincoln and Sherman and Grant and Seward and the other American geniuses of that time.

[JMS]

Lee's end game was an armistice. If the North agreed to any cessation of hostilities, everyone knew that would be the de facto end of the war. The North wouldn't have the popular support to remobilize and get the war machine up and running again. That would have let the CSA consolidate itself and gain legitimacy in the eyes of the great powers of the world.

 

Wow Great Post... 

 

Two Questions

 

(1) Do you think Lee could have won militarily by sacking DC and capturing Union Leadership? 

 

 

 

I don't think most Americans realize just how close Europe was to getting involved in our war, and indeed gaining a major foothold on the continent through Mexico and Canada. Basically William Seward's incredible diplomatic skill and effort saved our asses.

 

I don't disagree with what you said.   (2) Wasn't Britain the European power closest to intervening?   And Southern Cotton  was there chief motivation.  Industrial Britain needed to secure cotton to feed their looms.   The two things which precluded this action were (a)  Egypt developed a cotton industry and it was able to provide Britain with the supply required to forgo economic disaster.   (   Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation which Seward was against.   It made the war in the Eyes of Europeans as one for and against slavery.   The European powers including Britain were against slavery and thus supporting the South was politically untenable.

 

The south acknowledged this latter in the war when they agreed to give up slavery in exchange for British intervention into the war; only by this time it was late in the war and it really wasn't a viable option.

Also the Confederate leadership was pardoned and Lee had his citizenship restored,

 

In 1976... 

 

 

 

 I don't really care what side of an enormous and complicated political conflict they ended up on. They were soldiers and men of honor that did their duty. And they were great men, the country would be lucky to make more men and soldiers like them. Personally, I admire them the same as I admire Lincoln and Sherman and Grant and Seward and the other American geniuses of that time.

 

Well said... 

[Going Commando]

Wow Great Post... 

 

Two Questions

 

(1) Do you think Lee could have won militarily by sacking DC and capturing Union Leadership?

Probably. The key for Lee was a military victory decisive enough to lead to an armistice. An armistice was a confederate victory more or less. There were a couple paths for this:

1.) Northern war weariness and demoralization forcing the administration to seek an armistice.

2.) Reassuring the British that the South would keep winning the battles so that Europe would get involved, break the blockade, and force the belligerants into mediation and an armistice.

3.) By late 1863, a set of humiliating Northern defeats that would cause Lincoln to lose reelection to the defeatist George McClellan, who almost certainly would have sought an armistice. 

Sacking D.C. may not have been enough at the very beginning of the war, since the public wasn't really war weary yet. But by the second year I think it easily would have been enough to get an armistice.

I think Lee could have forced an armistice with a considerably less spectacular victory than sacking D.C. If he'd won Antietam decisively, or won Gettysburg, he probably could have gotten Europe involved.

 

I don't disagree with what you said.   (2) Wasn't Britain the European power closest to intervening?   And Southern Cotton  was there chief motivation.  Industrial Britain needed to secure cotton to feed their looms.   The two things which precluded this action were (a)  Egypt developed a cotton industry and it was able to provide Britain with the supply required to forgo economic disaster.   (    Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation which Seward was against.   It made the war in the Eyes of Europeans as one for and against slavery.   The European powers including Britain were against slavery and thus supporting the South was politically untenable.

 

The south acknowledged this latter in the war when they agreed to give up slavery in exchange for British intervention into the war; only by this time it was late in the war and it really wasn't a viable option.

I think it's really hard to say just how close Britain actually was to intervening because they were well positioned geopolitically and they were the most happy to keep the status quo alive among the great powers.

The British were very happy to get involved in conflicts around the globe where their interests were concerned--so long as British men didn't have to do the fighting. They didn't want to have to fight in the Crimean War and they did, and their experience in that conflict really soured them against fighting in another similar foreign war.

Contrast that to France, where Napoleon III was the biggest enemy of the status quo. He wanted to break up British colonial hegemony and re-establish French power in the New World. He wanted to break up the treaty system from 1815, which was specifically designed following the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte to keep France from achieving continental hegemony again. His costly Mexican venture meant that France had an immediate colonial interest in a Southern victory. I think France was the most eager and willing to get involved in the conflict. But the bottom line for them was that they wouldn't do it unless the British came with them. They didn't want to get left holding the bag.

The French textile industry also relied on Southern cotton too. But as you point out, pretty soon into the war, the British and French developed cotton supplies in Egypt and also India that relieved the pressure of the blockade. Because of this, I think the cotton/textile industry connection as an impetus for European involvement gets exaggerated. They weren't as desperate over this as many people thought.

As to the Emancipation Proclamation, Europe didn't take it seriously at the time. It wouldn't have kept them from getting involved if they wanted to. Lord Palmerston was the British P.M. and was a lifelong abolitionist and consistent defender of Britain's policy of ending the slave trade. He called the Emancipation Proclamation trash, his words: "a singular manifesto that could scarcely be treated seriously. It is not easy to estimate how utterly powerless and contemptible a government must have become which could sanction such ... trash." And the British media blasted the document: "a joke. It is a laughing-stock of Europe. The bare idea of a Government, in the last stage of incapability, proclaiming a coup d'etat to take effect three months hence, is more than ridiculous—it is pitiable."

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0025.103/--how-abe-lincoln-lost-the-black-vote-lincoln-and-emancipation?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Basically Europe thought the EP couldn't be enforced, and they noted that it only abolished slavery in the rebellious states, not in the Union states. They saw it as a desperate and feckless political ploy by the Lincoln administration to redefine a war that was not going well for them. At the time, they were right of course.

A lot gets made of this British working class sympathy for the North because they identified with the fight against slavery. But Norman Rich says that's been a big exaggeration, that it was a vocal but very small minority that cared about that. The vast majority of the working class was apathetic to the conflict, and the working class in the textile industry was mostly Pro-CSA because a Southern victory looked like the most expedient path to opening up imports of Southern cotton again. Makes sense. Most people only ever care about their immediate self interests. Look at us in regards to Syria today.

 

Anyway, Lord Palmerston was personally hostile to the USA because he (correctly) saw us as a looming threat to British colonial hegemony and British superiority of the seas. He saw a Confederate victory as a nice opportunity for Britain to defend her interests in the hemisphere. He would have liked to see a CSA form and provide a rival great power in the region to check runaway American expansion and set up a balance of power system in the region like the one they established in Europe after the Napoleonic wars.

BUT the British didn't believe it was worth enough for them to stick their necks out to try and make that happen. Remember, for them the status quo was good enough. They already had the dominant commercial presence in the hemisphere and were happy to continue their relationship with the USA uninterrupted if the Union won. They'd been cultivating a friendship with the Americans for decades by this point, and would intensify the bonds of friendship following the war. Their strategy for dealing with the eventual American rivalry and threat was to become our closest friend. And it worked. Spectacularly, and for well over a hundred years. So a Confederate victory wasn't necessary for them to defend their interests in the region.

It was for France though. Their Mexican venture failed as a direct result of the Union victory. France pulled their troops out of Mexico soon after. They had no hope of holding onto Mexico once the U.S. was done fighting and was able to turn their attention back to the rest of the hemisphere, and the U.S. officially supported the Benito Juarez regime. On the flip side, the Confederates pledged support to France in Mexico in return for French recognition and intervention.

Now there was the Trent Affair at the end of 1861 which was a diplomatic crisis for the Lincoln Administration. How close Britain actually was to getting involved over that is hard to say again. There was a lot of talk and outrage from Britain, but I get the sense this was a diplomatic ploy and they were still loathe to actually get involved. Mainly they didn't have the troops on the ground to defend Canada if it came to war. They had to scramble to try and raise troops against the possibility of an American invasion, and the U.S. was fully mobilized at this point. By the time the crisis ended, they still weren't close to meeting their goals.

Conducting a Naval war wouldn't have been easy either, like it was for the British in 1812. This was during an awkward period because it was right at the transition point from wooden sailing ships to the steam powered ironclad. It would have been difficult for the British to maintain a bunch of ironclads off the coast of the U.S. without nearby home ports to pick up fuel for their ships. It would have been much easier for the Union to build their own ironclads and defend their coasts with them. So even though the British had Naval superiority, imposing a blockade would have been extremely difficult.

So I don't think Britain wanted war any more than the Union did. That's why they gave the U.S. so many avenues to save face and end the crisis peacefully. And the Lincoln administration recognized almost immediately that they had to diffuse the situation and release Mason and Slidell. They were pretty quick to end the crisis, the whole thing was over in about 6 weeks.

 

In 1976... 

It took a while, but history eventually got it right IMO.

[JMS]

 

No, I'm referring to Lincoln's famous Proclamation. 

 

Which I freely announce was very anti-states rights, and, IMO, unconstitutional, too.  But then, I think Lincoln probably damaged the Constitution more than any other time in our history.  (Although IMO, the Japanese internment camps were kinds close.) 

 

 

Clearly Virginia took the Union asking for troops from the loyal states militia's in order to "invade and coerse" the sucessionist states to rejoin the union as a violation of state's rights.  Arkansas North Carolina and Tennessee who succeeded after Virginia likely did too.

[JMS]

In 1976 Lee and the rest of confederate leadership got their citizenship back

 

 

Quote 

 

It took a while, but history eventually got it right IMO.         

 

 

I remember it well..   After the war Lee and other Southern leadership including Jefferson Davis petitioned the Union to get their citizenship back.   The Union just sat on the requests and did nothing about it.  

 

President Jimmy Carter who was from Georgia as one of his first offical acts  granted the petitions.   I was in 4th grade and one of my best friends was Robert E. Lee VI.     My budy got to go to the White House and attend Jimmy's signing the order which restored Lee's citizenship.   I remember watching the local TV station interview my buddy Robbie about it.   

[Larry]

Remember Carter making several jokes about being from the south.  In one, he commented that he always liked the movie "Gone With the Wind", but that he suspects that he may have seen a different version. 

 

He said that his favorite part was when Lee burned Boston.