Logistics and the Anaconda Plan

[larry_cockerham]

The mint in Charlotte was actually based on the source of raw material in western North Carolina. Charlotte, a large town on a distribution system, the North Carolina railroad, linking to Raleigh and both north and south. The abundance of ore found later in California brought it's doom. It made a fine city park and has one of the better porcelain collections in the country. Many of the early coins (very shiny gold) are still there. I have an 1864 two-cent piece, probably made in Philadelphia (copper).

[whitworth]

There is no doubt that the South had lost the "war" to attract immigrants to its states, prior to the Civil War.
The South could see the increasing loss of power in the Congress in the next two decades. The past, particularly for Virginia, was fading away.
The population growths from New York to Illinois meant decreasing seats in the House of Representatives for southern states. In the House of Representatives, slaves had less value than the new immigrants. Immigrants counted for whole numbers.

Wealth in the South was greatly based on slavery; in the North immigrants meant a shift in political power.

Unfortunately, there was no easy way out of the Union. Perhaps too conservative, the Southern leadership never foresaw the heavy use of deficit financing by the Lincoln administration, to regain its lost territory.

The new Confederacy was shocked by Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops. They never saw an army of hundreds of thousands and well armed, and not financed mainly from current revenues. It was a war the Confederacy never foresaw. Even with their long experience, Jefferson Davis and R.E. Lee never saw it coming.

[larry_cockerham]

Whitworth wrote:

"Wealth in the South was greatly based on slavery; in the North immigrants meant a shift in political power."

Can't exactly buy that one. Wealth in the south was based somewhat on the fledgling iron industry as well as agriculture. Slaves were a source of labor, little else.

[ole]

Whitworth also wrote:

There is no doubt that the South had lost the "war" to attract immigrants to its states, prior to the Civil War.

The South was never in a competition to attract immigrants. In fact (I read somewhere) it discouraged immigration. Even if it encouraged immigration, there were no jobs to be had in the south. No jobs; no immigrants.

And:

The new Confederacy was shocked by Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops.

Maybe alarmed. Certainly outraged. Which strikes me as strange, since the new Confederacy had been working for more than a month to recruit 70,000 volunteers for its own army.

And:

Even with their long experience, Jefferson Davis and R.E. Lee never saw it coming.

Nah. Davis knew it would likely come when he ordered the reduction of Ft. Sumter. Lee knew it was coming when he opted to stay with Virginia.

Ole

[trice]

Originally Posted by whitworth

There is no doubt that the South had lost the "war" to attract immigrants to its states, prior to the Civil War.

While there was immigration, there was limited opportunity for most immigrants. Plantation style agriculture (cotton, rice, sugar, tobacco) required large capital investment, which the average European immigrant simply did not have. Jobs were in the North; profitable farms for the small farmer were in the North and West. Also cheaper transportation for immigrants went to the North, to the big ports: Boston, New York, Philadelphia. But the South did not want to attract most of them, and made relatively little effort to do so.

Originally Posted by whitworth

The South could see the increasing loss of power in the Congress in the next two decades. The past, particularly for Virginia, was fading away.
The population growths from New York to Illinois meant decreasing seats in the House of Representatives for southern states. In the House of Representatives, slaves had less value than the new immigrants. Immigrants counted for whole numbers.

How about they free the slaves and count them as whole persons? The South would gain immense representation in Congress in a single leap and solve this problem for decades to come.

Originally Posted by whitworth

Wealth in the South was greatly based on slavery; in the North immigrants meant a shift in political power.

I doubt many in the North thought this way. While it would slowly shift Congressional representation in the House, it did nothing about the Senate. Ordinary people probably never considered it; politicians might have; but it was something that would happen over several decades, and few concentrate on such things.

Originally Posted by whitworth

Unfortunately, there was no easy way out of the Union. Perhaps too conservative, the Southern leadership never foresaw the heavy use of deficit financing by the Lincoln administration, to regain its lost territory.

Personally, I have always believed that if the secessionists really wanted out and simply tired a peaceful, legal approach, they had about a 50% chance of being allowed to go. If they failed, they could still try war and revolution in a year or two.

Originally Posted by whitworth

The new Confederacy was shocked by Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops. They never saw an army of hundreds of thousands and well armed, and not financed mainly from current revenues. It was a war the Confederacy never foresaw. Even with their long experience, Jefferson Davis and R.E. Lee never saw it coming.

No, not this. Lee saw it all along, which is why he was always committed to going with Virginia. Davis was preaching preparation for the coming war as he travelled home to Mississippi after he resigned from the Senate in January 1861.

The Confederate Congress voted legislation by March 4, 1861 that called for 100,000 Volunteers plus a Regular Army. That's the day Lincoln entered office in Washington, and the US Army consisted of 16,000 men at the time. By the time Ft. Sumter was attacked, Davis had called for over 30,000 of those men; Lincoln had not called for a single man at that point. Davis increased the call to 64,000 the day after Lincoln made his first call for troops.

If the Confederacy was "shocked", it was the shock of someone who starts a bar fight by throwing the first punch, surprised when the other guy gets up off the floor to fight back.

Regards,
Tim

[cw1865]

Originally Posted by trice

Personally, I have always believed that if the secessionists really wanted out and simply tired a peaceful, legal approach, they had about a 50% chance of being allowed to go.

Essentially the South has three routes:

1. Unilateral secession presenting the Feds with a fait accompli, which they attempt and which Lincoln of course does not recognize.

2. Congressional Action - they could theoretically stay in the Union and present a bill, hoping the Northerners will vote for it and hopefully with enough votes to overiide Buchanan's or Lincoln's potential veto.

3. Judicial route - I'm not sure what type of suit they would bring in the Federal courts, a petition to compel separation and adjudicate differences? Jefferson Davis actually hopes that he is going to be arrested and tried for treason on the basis that, if acquitted, it amounts to a declaration that secession is not treason and hence legal (of course this never happens). But nevertheless this is, historically, the most intriguing route because of Taney sitting in the Supreme Court.

As we all know Taney is the author of Dred Scott and also issues the ruling against Lincoln's declaration of the suspension of Habeaus Corpus in In Re Merryman.

Of course Taney is a slave-holding border stater (Maryland), so its difficult to know precisely how he would rule in such a case, but I'm of the opinion that Taney would've issues a ruling that would've compelled Federal recognition of secession, putting the onus on Lincoln (or theoretically on Buchanan) to abide by the ruling or be perceived as a dictator.

[Capt Coxetter]

Originally Posted by whitworth

In the end, the entire Civil War showed the Confederacy could never match the United States in basic military supply; in steamboats and ironclads; and in railroads, railroad repair and construction.

And in population, too. And those factors are in a nutshell why the North won the Civil War.

Capt. Coxetter

[trice]

Originally Posted by cw1865

Essentially the South has three routes:

1. Unilateral secession presenting the Feds with a fait accompli, which they attempt and which Lincoln of course does not recognize.

This is essentially what was called the "natural right of revolution" at that time. It is not a legal right of any kind under the US Constitution. It is about equivalent to the ancient rites of trial by combat, with knights entering the lists and a marshal crying "May God defend the right!" as the fight begins. Abraham Lincoln, among others, recognized the existence of the "natural right of revolution" before the war. It is, in effect and as you note, what we call the American Civil War. It looks for a de facto, not a de jure, decision and indeed one was reached: the South lost.

Originally Posted by cw1865

2. Congressional Action - they could theoretically stay in the Union and present a bill, hoping the Northerners will vote for it and hopefully with enough votes to overiide Buchanan's or Lincoln's potential veto.

Probably a decent chance this would work out, either to some sort of a compromise or to the release of the Southern states, because they would have the power to tie the nation in knots in the Congress. The problem was they did not have the patience required to try it, I think -- and quite possibly would have found the majority of the Southern people didn't really want to leave the Union if they'd been given time to reconsider it.

The other thing they could have done was to push for a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing (or just recognizing) the right of secession and spelling out the mechanism by which it would be achieved.

Originally Posted by cw1865

3. Judicial route - I'm not sure what type of suit they would bring in the Federal courts, a petition to compel separation and adjudicate differences? Jefferson Davis actually hopes that he is going to be arrested and tried for treason on the basis that, if acquitted, it amounts to a declaration that secession is not treason and hence legal (of course this never happens). But nevertheless this is, historically, the most intriguing route because of Taney sitting in the Supreme Court.

Actually pretty simple, all they need is a test case for the Supreme Court to accept and rule on that would decide whether or not the legal "right of secession" existed for a state under the US Constitution. For example: SC secedes, SC votes for a tax on goods imported from FL, FL files suit in Federal Court. If SC is still a member of the Union, she cannot tax the import; if she can, she must have been able to leave the Union and so there must be a "right of secession".

Originally Posted by cw1865

As we all know Taney is the author of Dred Scott and also issues the ruling against Lincoln's declaration of the suspension of Habeaus Corpus in In Re Merryman.
Of course Taney is a slave-holding border stater (Maryland), so its difficult to know precisely how he would rule in such a case, but I'm of the opinion that Taney would've issues a ruling that would've compelled Federal recognition of secession, putting the onus on Lincoln (or theoretically on Buchanan) to abide by the ruling or be perceived as a dictator.

Taney had all sorts of draft opinions on the issue of secession, but never managed to get a case he could use them in before he died. It is pretty obvious which way he would have come down to legal scholars (I'm not one).

The other 8 judges of 1860 look like they would have split 4-4. People think that's becuse that's how the free state/slave state mix in them went, but actually it seems likely one of the Southerners would have been against the "right of secession" and one of the Northerners been in favor.

Just as Lincoln arrived, however, judges started expiring. The first to go was the Virginian, who was somewhere to the right of Taney on slavery and states' rights issues. A northerner followed, one who probably would have been against secession. Lincoln held off filling both spots for a long time, planning to offer the traditionally VA spot to the South if a reconcilliation compromise could be reached.

Regards,
Tim

[cw1865]

Originally Posted by trice

Abraham Lincoln, among others, recognized the existence of the "natural right of revolution" before the war. It is, in effect and as you note, what we call the American Civil War. It looks for a de facto, not a de jure, decision and indeed one was reached: the South lost.

We're really discussing how the Confederates could've actually pulled off an actual secession and not really debating the actual legality of secession. You've seen my posts before and should know I am an anti-secessionist. But the South does claim a legal right to secession. Actually their claim of a right to revolution is intertwined with the compact theory of the Constitution and the Southerners allege a breach of the compact (ie. breaching the compact gives rise to a right of revolution). Their problem is that the 'breach' is the failure of sister states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, which is NOT a Federal breach (bring a lawsuit in Fed. Court for damages) and which is also ironic inasmuch as the Fugutive Slave Act only acts against the 'state rights' of free-states.

Originally Posted by trice

Probably a decent chance this would work out, either to some sort of a compromise or to the release of the Southern states, because they would have the power to tie the nation in knots in the Congress. The problem was they did not have the patience required to try it, I think -- and quite possibly would have found the majority of the Southern people didn't really want to leave the Union if they'd been given time to reconsider it..

That, I hadn't actually considered. A series of filibusters, perhaps? I was thinking more along the lines of presenting some sort of bill for secession, letting it be known that a 'no' vote is a vote for war. With Southern Congressmen and Senators still voting you don't need a majority of the Northern voters, you just need enough to get you over the threshold. So, theoretically it could be quick.

Originally Posted by trice

The other thing they could have done was to push for a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing (or just recognizing) the right of secession and spelling out the mechanism by which it would be achieved...

On this point, I think your 'no patience' theory would apply! Plus of course you have the super-majority problem.

Originally Posted by trice

Actually pretty simple, all they need is a test case for the Supreme Court to accept and rule on that would decide whether or not the legal "right of secession" existed for a state under the US Constitution. For example: SC secedes, SC votes for a tax on goods imported from FL, FL files suit in Federal Court. If SC is still a member of the Union, she cannot tax the import; if she can, she must have been able to leave the Union and so there must be a "right of secession"....

Maybe instead of firing on Fort Sumter, they attempt to evict Feds in Federal court?

Originally Posted by trice

Taney had all sorts of draft opinions on the issue of secession, but never managed to get a case he could use them in before he died. It is pretty obvious which way he would have come down to legal scholars (I'm not one)..

Draft Opinions? Point me in the right direction, I'd like to see one. My opinion is that Taney will decide in favor of the secessionists, his decisions are clearly pro-slavery. My ONLY reservation is that he is a literalist.

[trice]

Originally Posted by cw1865

We're really discussing how the Confederates could've actually pulled off an actual secession and not really debating the actual legality of secession. You've seen my posts before and should know I am an anti-secessionist. But the South does claim a legal right to secession. Actually their claim of a right to revolution is intertwined with the compact theory of the Constitution and the Southerners allege a breach of the compact (ie. breaching the compact gives rise to a right of revolution). Their problem is that the 'breach' is the failure of sister states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, which is NOT a Federal breach (bring a lawsuit in Fed. Court for damages) and which is also ironic inasmuch as the Fugutive Slave Act only acts against the 'state rights' of free-states.



That, I hadn't actually considered. A series of filibusters, perhaps? I was thinking more along the lines of presenting some sort of bill for secession, letting it be known that a 'no' vote is a vote for war. With Southern Congressmen and Senators still voting you don't need a majority of the Northern voters, you just need enough to get you over the threshold. So, theoretically it could be quick.




On this point, I think your 'no patience' theory would apply! Plus of course you have the super-majority problem.



Maybe instead of firing on Fort Sumter, they attempt to evict Feds in Federal court?




Draft Opinions? Point me in the right direction, I'd like to see one. My opinion is that Taney will decide in favor of the secessionists, his decisions are clearly pro-slavery. My ONLY reservation is that he is a literalist.

Started a new thread over in the Secession section since it seemed more relevant.

Regards,
Tim