Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Butcher refers to tactics not losses. Sound tactics may have prevented the "extreme" losses (Which are part of any war) and still had the desired effect. Smashing men again and again against fortified lines when you hold the strategic and tactical advantage (Grant proved he held the advantage by flanking Lee again and again on the way to Richmond) is not sound military sense it's military stupidity.
As for the West, Atlanta had not fallen at this time. And if Atlanta had not fallen by election time, would it have impacted the final result of the 1864 election.
Members of Lincoln's own party were attempting to maneuver Lincoln out of office (even after he had been nominated). Lincoln himself wrote a letter
on August 23,1864 in case he lost the election.
The Letter read:
This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedinly probable that this Administration will not be reelected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save th Union between election and inauguration: as he will have secured his election on such grounds that he cannot possibly save afterwords.
Serious strategist saw the Confederacy bleeding to death however, the politicos saw a different scenario regardless of the Confederacy dying a slow death. If a major victory (Atlanta, September 2, 1864)had not occurred then the election may have been much closer. Lincoln only won by roughly 450,000 votes. The Electoral is what makes it look bad for "Little Mac" (212-21) however, the popular vote was not that crushing roughly 2,203,831-1,797,019. If September/Oct had went differently (On the Battle Field) then we may have had "Little Mac" as President (Or at least a "CHAD" count). Those two months won Lincoln the Election of 1864.
Prior to the 1864 election, analyzing public opinion was very hit and miss and therefore, party leaders were unaware of developing attitudes that would assure Lincoln's reelection. It is now believed, for instance, that the soldier vote, which was so significant in the election was already a done deal when McClellan allowed Pendleton to be his running mate and the peace platform to pass at the Chicago Convention in August. McClellan was not a peace at any price candidate although to the men in the ranks it appeared to be the case. Gideon Welles observed that the Democrats had crippled themselves with their "suicidal resolutions" and noted in his diary the next morning, "I think the President will be reelected and I shall be surprised if he does not have a large majority."
By the time of the election, the survivors of the AoP were no longer wide-eyed boys cheering a Napoleon wannabee, but rather grizzled, pragmatic veterans who were impressed by results not pomp and circumstance. McClellan’s reputation with the AoP became a faded memory the day after the Wilderness when Grant turned south instead of retreating as his predecessors had done.
And let's not forget that Lincoln himself was a savvy political genius and poor old Mac was no match for him.
In <u>Lincoln</u> Dr. Donald (I believe to be the foremost Lincoln scholar) outlines the strategic vision of Lincoln and how he subtly imposed it on Grant without the general even realizing it.
Grant's original strategy when he went East favored a series of raids not just by cavalry but infantry and naval forces as well to destroy critical rail lines and to move against Mobile, Al and Raleigh, NC where Lee drew his supplies. Lincoln and Halleck were wedded to the idea of protecting Washington at all costs and felt differently.
"Under the influence of Lincoln and Halleck, Grant abandoned nearly of this plan. The President would not consent to weakening the race between Lee's army and the national capital; . . .apart from that Lincoln had developed a contempt for what he scornfully called 'strategy.' What he thought was needed was not more maneuvering but assault after assault on the Confederate army. For months that was what he had been urging on Meade without much success; now he expected Grant to fight." [pg 499]
However, after the series of head on battles that resulted in so much loss and bitter disappointment, Donald explains a subtle shift. "In a shift of strategy; on June 14 he [Grant] began moving the Army of the Potomac through the swamps of the Chickahominy River. . . in a return to Grant's original strategic plan -- it could cut the rail lines that connected Richmond to the South. Grant's change of base was brilliantly executed, so that Lee had no certain idea of his whereabouts." [pg 511]
In the same post you write "As for the West, Atlanta had not fallen at this time. And if Atlanta had not fallen by election time, would it have impacted the final result of the 1864 election.", followed later by "If a major victory (Atlanta, September 2, 1864)had not occurred then the election may have been much closer."
I must confess to being confused.
You appear to want the overland campaign to have had an effect on the election of 1864.Well it was too early in the year.
Whether Atlanta's fall impacted the outcome of the election or not, its clear that it had a huge impact on the political situation in the north.It totally cut the legs out from under the peace Democrates.McClellan declared he would fight if he won.The south lost its last pipe dream.
Now this begs the true question.Lets call it Jeff,Lee and the 1864 election.Why where they not butchers for fighting on after the election?Its pretty clear they were beaten.
To say the Overland campaign could not have impacted the '64 election because it was to early in the year is wrong. As for the '64 election, I posed the question could it's outcome have changed due the outcome of the Overland campaign. The truth is it could have impacted the election. The months of Sept. and Oct. were critical to public opinion because the Union had finally achieved clear cut victories on the field of battle which would translate to more votes.
I will not say Lincoln would have lost the election. However, Grant turned back at Cold Harbor or before and Sherman outside of Atlanta still in a holding pattern, with Early still probing towards Washington, in the Valley, makes me wonder.
In my opinion Lee did butcher his troops a few times just like Burnside, Grant, and many others. However, if fighting on after an election (pretty clear they were beaten) means your a butcher I question your reasoning.
Historically, if being outmaned and resourced (and continuing to fight on) in a lost or probable lost cause means your a butcher then look no further than "The Alamo", while we are at it why not that small group of "Batard Bastards" in Bostonge, cut off in the massive German strike of '44. Finally, lets just add insult to injury and include the Rangers and Delta force in Mogadishu, ****lia in '93! Come to think of it a small band of Patriots fought for years without help in our Revolution. They were beaten again and again however, they fought on and ultimately achieved victory.
The truth is people fight on for whatever they believe in. This does not make them butchers, poor tactics and planning make them butchers.
Sorry, for the outburst however, I have lost friends in combat due to poor planning and execution while serving in our armed forces.
The point is even great generals like Grant and Lee make mistakes both tactical and strategical. They both had personalities, however, that were tenacious producing a Shiloh and Chancelorsville, which on the flipside could also produce stubborn foolishness that cost their men lives i.e. Picketts Charge and Cold Harbor.
However, the "what if" premise is just a little off the possibility scale for one main reason, Grant was never in danger of turning back unless ordered to do so. It was the cornerstone of his character and personality that Grant did not retrace his steps even when taking a leisurely ride along the Gravois in MO.
Donald also says in his book that the War Department was handling the bad press emanating from the front with as much finesse and sagacity as any spin doctors working on Monica. I cannot believe that Lincoln was in danger of losing except through an obvious disaster on the battlefield coupled with a surge in white flag mentality. Neither of which was developing in August. Grant unlike his predecessors was moving, a fact in and of itself was hopeful.
Lincoln didn't know it and his people were certainly skeptical, but the heart of the soldiers and their families knew he was a shoe-in as they wanted to win after the enormous sacrifice.
Sean
You wrote,"However, if fighting on after an election (pretty clear they were beaten) means your a butcher I question your reasoning.
Historically, if being outmaned and resourced (and continuing to fight on) in a lost or probable lost cause means your a butcher then look no further than "The Alamo", while we are at it why not that small group of "Batard Bastards" in Bostonge, cut off in the massive German strike of '44. Finally, lets just add insult to injury and include the Rangers and Delta force in Mogadishu, ****lia in '93! Come to think of it a small band of Patriots fought for years without help in our Revolution. They were beaten again and again however, they fought on and ultimately achieved victory.
The truth is people fight on for whatever they believe in. This does not make them butchers, poor tactics and planning make them butchers."
Please reread what I have writen.I was refering to a specific election with a specific set of circumstances.Nowhere did I define "butcher" in the broad manner that you imply.If you do not wish to respond to my question,("Now this begs the true question.Lets call it Jeff,Lee and the 1864 election.Why where they not butchers for fighting on after the election?Its pretty clear they were beaten.") fine, but don't put words into my mouth.
I repeat my basic contention that after the election of 1864 there was no reason for the south to carry on the fight.In my opinion every death from then on was murder at the hands of Lee and Davis.
Hindsight is 20/20 and not fighting after the election of 1864 because according to you they had lost is your opinion. That they were butchers is once again your opinion. I did not put words in your mouth. Sorry you feel that way. Anyway, since all this is only opinion it really does not matter. I have made my point and you yours.
Finally, I ask you this, Washington retreated out of New York during our Revolution and into New Jersey. He had no supplies and an army that was going to dissolve within a few weeks. He faced a well supplied and trained force in the British and German's. Yet, he gambled everything on a night attack in Trenton against impossible odds and WON! Leading the army on to survive and gain hope in our Nation's independence.
I suppose Lee and Davis could not have hoped for a change in the tides of war. I suppose quitting is the smart thing to due. Washington should have surrendered (**** that Man of Rebellion), after all the odds were against him. A sports analogy goes, "Thats why we play the game" I think the same principle comes into play here. And if it does not, well, I would be more than happy to get Mr. Peabody and the "Way-Back Machine" and go to Richmond 1864 and answer the question to your exacting and rigid standards. Because sir, I, like you, can't!
However, I due recall Mr. Peabody meeting Washington maybe he met Jeff, Abe, Lee, and Grant to! Hmmmm, very interesting.
Regards,
Sean (I must be a Rebel in your eyes/Were is Connie when you need Her) Harris
Greg, I agree that logically Lee should have given up the ghost after the election. All hope of foreign recognition was gone; there was no chance of a negotiated peace that would include either independence or slavery; the Confederacy had constricted to a narrow corridor in the East; the army was ragged and shrinking with no hope of replenishment; and, the home front was in tatters with the countryside in smoldering ashes.
Yet we all know that denial is a part of human nature. Lee, while ordinarily pragmatic, kept his eye on the ball and the goal of victory. The faint light of hope was just enough to keep the momentum going forward.
Sean, I don't buy the Washington analogy here. The original Rebels had adopted a space for time strategy from the beginning and were always willing to give up location to save the army. In addition, Britain was a few thousands miles away and just as it was hard for them in that age of long delayed communication to run a colony, they had the same problem running a war while still juggling the more important European politics. Britain, while fighting us, had opened up a weak spot that France, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Russians were eager to exploit. England could not sustain their efforts here without compromising their position there.
Lee was faced with an entirely different scenario. Both the Federal political machine -Lincoln - and the Yankee army - Grant - were breathing down his neck and kicking his posterior, regularly. Washington by comparison was able to hole up, avoid getting pummeled and defuse the isolated kicks from the British.
Lee had to know the game was up or rather should have known, but there was that denial again as well as the spirit of the still willing army and civilians. I don't think it was time. They had to be soundly whipped before anyone could stomach surrender.
I would think you did agree with me, in principle. In reference to my analogy of Washington, wether you thought you did or not.
My reason is what you said, (In reference to the Confederacy) "but there was that denial again as well as the spirit of the still willing army and civilians."
After Trenton Dec 25, 1776 it was not until Oct 19, 1781, Yorktown, till victory was achieved. Why does what you said about denial and the human spirit not support the American Revolution, other world conflicts, and or the Confederates people of 1864?
Connie, Gregg, That's what I basically said earlier. "Come to think of it a small band of Patriots fought for years without help in our Revolution. They were beaten again and again however, they fought on and ultimately achieved victory.
Forget the Historical particulars, the principle is the same no matter what Historical time frame.
"The truth is people fight on for whatever they believe in. This does not make them butchers, poor tactics and planning make them butchers."
I do not need Historical particulars, election results, or footnotes to know what the human spirit is capable of when willing.
If the soldiers and people did not believe in what they were fighting for then yes, they would of surrendered after the election. Regardless of what Lee and Davis wanted. People due rebel or just give up, its a historical fact.
Did you ever think maybe some of these people really believed in their "New Nation" maybe they had lost their homes, crops, and villages at the hand of an invader?
Forget the the causes of the issue for one minute. If your Nation/home was invaded wether you agreed with the reason or not wouldnt you fight to protect your family, home, and loved ones? The principle is still the same.
When we did the flag folding each fold represented something different. The one that comes into effect here, in principle, is something to the effect of, "This is our Nation wether she be right or wrong we will protect Her"
I am sure the Southern people felt the same, if not for the Nation then for there individual states.
You guys can say they were not a Nation according to such and such article or Historian X however, does that change the fact they fought because they felt they were a Nation? Legality, who cares it happened. I am glad they did not win however, the North was not the great savior some people play it up to be. Lincoln would have been the Savior after the war however, he died. Our Nation would have been a better place with his survival.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
