23 April 1865 : "Panic has seized the country," writes Davis

[william42]

"Panic has seized the country," writes Davis

http://www.history.com/tdih.do?actio...tegoryId=civil


Confederate President Jefferson Davis writes to his wife, Varina, of the desperate situating facing the Confederates.

"Panic has seized the country," he wrote to his wife in Georgia. Davis was in Charlotte, North Carolina, on his flight away from Yankee troops. It was three weeks since Davis had fled the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia, as Union troops were overrunning the trenches nearby. Davis and his government headed west to Danville, Virginia, in hopes of reestablishing offices there. When General Robert E. Lee was forced to surrender his army at Appomattox Court House on April 9, Davis and his officials traveled south in hopes of connecting with the last major Confederate army, the force of General Joseph Johnston. Johnston, then in North Carolina, was himself in dire straits, as General William T. Sherman's massive force was bearing down.

Davis continued to his wife, "The issue is one which it is very painful for me to meet. On one hand is the long night of oppression which will follow the return of our people to the 'Union'; on the other, the suffering of the women and children, and carnage among the few brave patriots who would still oppose the invader." The Davis' were reunited a few days later as the president continued to flee and continue the fight. Two weeks later, Union troops finally captured the Confederate president in northern Georgia.




Terry

[whitworth]

As a West Point graduate and war veteran, Jefferson Davis always seemed, contradictory, to exhibit a confidence that the war was never lost.
One wonders if the leadership of the Confederacy knew the war was lost, long before Appomattox, but couldn't bear to see the end of slavery, in any negotiation for reunion.

[ole]

One wonders if the leadership of the Confederacy knew the war was lost, long before Appomattox, but couldn't bear to see the end of slavery, in any negotiation for reunion.

I'd guess that they knew the war was lost and the end of slavery was something they couldn't avoid -- but they'd crowed about fighting until the last man for so long that they couldn't back down (the honor thing).

Ole

[larry_cockerham]

Gettysburg results and the recruiting stats from 1864 should have been a hint that even Davis could have comprehended.

[whitworth]

On the retreat to Appomattox, one Confederate general said any continued fighting was murder. If Lee hadn't surrendered at Appomattox, it would have been a slaughterhouse, with continued fighting.

Just months before Appomattox, Lee was bitterly complaining about desertions in his army.
The Confederate privates that deserted after the fall of Atlanta, knew the war was lost and over. Lee didn't grasped that fact.

After pulling out of Richmond, Confederate ammunition resupply was gone. The Army of Northern Virginia was an army in name only.

[ole]

The Confederate privates that deserted after the fall of Atlanta, knew the war was lost and over. Lee didn't grasped that fact.

I think Lee knew it was over. As a soldier, he had to wait for his leaders to give him the word. For that, I give Lee a demerit. He had the respect and ear of influential Confederate leaders -- he ought to have used it to help end the war sooner. (INCOMING!!)

Ole

[larry_cockerham]

Ole, you might want to find the helmet. As you know, that ain't what Lee was made of.

[william42]

Posted by Ole
As a soldier, he had to wait for his leaders to give him the word.

I always sort of placed the blame for the length of the war on ol' Jeff Davis, myself. My gosh. Was he the only one who didn't see the writing on the wall? Was he that short-sighted and/or stubborn, intractable? When everybody was dug in at Petersburg at the end of '64 he still refused to give in, which, if he would have blown the whistle, would have prevented more deaths on both sides. I mean, not giving up is admirable to a point, but there comes a point when it becomes futile and just plain self-destructive to keep hanging on. As commander in chief he could've said the word and it all could have been over and done with in 1864. I wonder if he still, at that late date, thought the Confederacy would prevail, or if he just didn't want to face the music.



Terry

[trice]

I always sort of placed the blame for the length of the war on ol' Jeff Davis, myself. My gosh. Was he the only one who didn't see the writing on the wall? Was he that short-sighted and/or stubborn, intractable? When everybody was dug in at Petersburg at the end of '64 he still refused to give in, which, if he would have blown the whistle, would have prevented more deaths on both sides. I mean, not giving up is admirable to a point, but there comes a point when it becomes futile and just plain self-destructive to keep hanging on. As commander in chief he could've said the word and it all could have been over and done with in 1864. I wonder if he still, at that late date, thought the Confederacy would prevail, or if he just didn't want to face the music.

Terry

Terry,

Lee understood the end was coming unless something spectacular happened; he had already indicated to Davis and the government that he would be unable to hold Richmond once the Spring offensive started (before Five Forks, anyway, and probably had done so back in January). Being Lee, he did it politely and indirectly, but Davis really has no excuse for not knowing how dire the situation was.

But Lee as Commanding General of the Confederacy should not be giving ultimatums to his C-in-C or his government; he should not be negotiating a surrender of his field force; he should not be spreading doom-and-gloom to all he meets. His responsibility is to present a solid front against the enemy, to strengthen his government's bargaining position, and gain every moment of time he can.

IMHO, Lee was doing this in the Winter of 1864-65. He may have hoped that Grant would not move until May, but he knew how long the odds were as he mapped Sherman's progress through the Carolinas in February and March. Five Forks only hastened the day Richmond must be given up.

Also IMHO, Davis was a man who epitomized why there was a Civil War in the first place: his idea of a compromise was that he had to win first on his own goals, then he'd compromise on minor matters. This is what I see in the 1865 peace mission: he sent them off with instructions that guaranteed failure unless the Union was ready to collapse.

That gives us few choices, such as:
1) Davis had no realistic idea of the situation of the Union and the Confederacy in the Winter of 1864-65 and did not understand Abraham Lincoln or the American people;
2) Davis was a gambler running a bluff, figuring he'd get his best terms by being unmovable and defiant;
3) Davis refused to countenance personal failure and cared more about that than the fate of Confederate citizens;
4) Davis was living in a fairyland, believing Lee and Johnston would somehow destroy/throw back Grant, Sherman, and the rest in the 1865 campaigns.

Regards,
Tim

[ole]

That gives us few choices, such as:
1) Davis had no realistic idea of the situation of the Union and the Confederacy in the Winter of 1864-65 and did not understand Abraham Lincoln or the American people;
2) Davis was a gambler running a bluff, figuring he'd get his best terms by being unmovable and defiant;
3) Davis refused to countenance personal failure and cared more about that than the fate of Confederate citizens;
4) Davis was living in a fairyland, believing Lee and Johnston would somehow destroy/throw back Grant, Sherman, and the rest in the 1865 campaigns.

Excellent post, Tim. I'll vote for #3.

[ole]

Ole, you might want to find the helmet. As you know, that ain't what Lee was made of.

Agreed, Larry. Could've, should've, would've. I'm looking at it as should've. and that was not Bobby Lee. Would that be a flaw?

For the sake of flogging this deceased equine a bit more: Sherman was the ultimate "yessir, thank you sir, may I have another." But that didn't stop him from criticizing anything and everything that came to his attention. If Lee had an ounce of that personal rebelliousness, he might have worked on convincing JD to hang it up. He didn't. And he gets my demerit.

Kindest regards,
Ole

[william42]

Posted by Trice

But Lee as Commanding General of the Confederacy should not be giving ultimatums to his C-in-C or his government; he should not be negotiating a surrender of his field force; he should not be spreading doom-and-gloom to all he meets. His responsibility is to present a solid front against the enemy, to strengthen his government's bargaining position, and gain every moment of time he can.

Yes, I agree completely with you here, Tim. That's why I tend not to fault Lee. He told the truth to Davis as he saw it, I'm sure, in his usual respectful manner. And I also agree that far be it from him to dictate ultimatums to his Commander in Chief.

I also agree with your number three:

3) Davis refused to countenance personal failure and cared more about that than the fate of Confederate citizens;

I agree that Davis refused to acknowledge personal failure, to the point that he would rather blame others for his failings, at times. IMO, had he actually been as concerned for his people as he should have been, he would have ended the war sooner, in 1864, when it was clear to just about everybody how things were going to end up.

In the end, by prolonging the conflict, causing more suffering and death, the loss of Richmond, etc., he did much more harm to his people. By outright fleeing from the situation at the very end, without arranging a formal surrender and officially ending the conflict, his legacy IMO is that of a frightened man just trying to save his own skin.


Terry

[samgrant]

Davis was delusional.

[larry_cockerham]

It pains my southern *** to consider such, but I suspect there is a certain level of truth in all the prior statements. Davis was not the world's greatest commander to say the least.

[ole]

BUT. With that we do a disservice to Davis. He was caught up in situation that was not of his choosing. He bought into a situation that was beyond his control and he was villified for it. The guy got skunked, however you want to paint it.

[trice]

BUT. With that we do a disservice to Davis. He was caught up in situation that was not of his choosing. He bought into a situation that was beyond his control and he was villified for it. The guy got skunked, however you want to paint it.

Ole,

This, I think, is a bit strong.

Davis was the leading defender of the "right of secession" after Calhoun died. He was a leading defender of slavery, a strong proponent of filibustering and the conquest/acquisition of territory for slavery expansion, etc. in the run-up to the Civil War. He left Washington in 1861 and made speeches about the necessity to prepare for the coming war. Appointed head of the Mississippi Militia, he stunned the Governor by his flat statements about the coming war and the need to prepare. This was all before he was appointed the first President of the Confederacy -- and his objection to taking that position was that he preferred to be a general and command in the field. He was an educated and experienced soldier; he had served in battle and war; he had served as Secretary of War for the United States.

Nobody sold Jefferson Davis a bill of goods on this. If there was anyone who understood that secession meant war, long and hard war, among the Confederate leadership, Jeff Davis is it. When push came to shove, it was Jeff Davis that pushed to start the war, in order to get the wavering Upper South, and in particular Virginia, to join the Confederacy. Having led the start of the conflict, he was the one most determined to continue it. I don't think he is being blamed unfairly on this.

Regards,
Tim

[larry_cockerham]

Ole, I agree with Tim. Davis was consciously leading the pack. What he didn't do was a good market study. There were a few hundred thousand Union sympathizers in his 'territory' that he didn't account for or ask advice prior to taking the pot shots at Ft. Sumter. He bullied his generals throughout the war, though I suspect he had little choice. Another example of a figure who had a vision and and a cause which he rode into the ground. Sad story, actually. Taking an inventory of the north's military potential prior to the war should have given him some clues.

[ole]

OK, guys. I surrender. Davis really was a jerk. Would you agree on a reluctant jerk?

Ole

[larry_cockerham]

Not reluctant, more enthusiastic.

[ole]

OK. I give up. From this minute forward, I will not publicly mention any sympathy for what's his name.

Ole

[trice]

OK. I give up. From this minute forward, I will not publicly mention any sympathy for what's his name.

Ole,

Davis was a nice guy -- in private life. He was cantankerous, intransigent, and combative -- in public life.

This isn't something we should be surprised at; it is rather the beau ideal man of the ante-bellum South, if perhaps a bit on the over-done side.

The South of that day idealized the independent, stand-on-his-own man. Men who worked as employees of others were generally looked down upon, possibly because they seemed closer to the servile class. Since success and wealth in the South came from land ownership (and hence slave-ownership eventually), tradesmen, mechanics, and free workers were devalued in the planter society. Southern concepts of honor, when carried to extremes, demanded a man bristle at any public disagreement with his statements or opinions, and be prepared to defend with his life, if necessary, his positions.

Northerners, of course, were not free of such ideas and we can find evidence of somewhat the same ideas in wealthier families. The difference is more that the idea was so dominant in the South that I think you cannot understand that society and the actions of secession without keeping the difference firmly in mind.

Davis was in some ways the idealized Southern planter, particularly one from the frontier areas as Missisippi was in the 1830s and 1840s. Subtract the rough-and-tumble differences from a man like Nathan Bedford Forrest, the harsh nature of his poverty and slave-trade days, and look at the way he responded to a perceived personal challenge: in abstract, is Forrest all that different on a public front, or is his instinctive combative reaction much the same as Davis' reaction to criticism from and conflicts with politicians, newspapermen and generals?

IMHO, the Fire-Eaters probably had more than their share of the type who took pride to an extreme on such issues, and that would make any attempt at compromise very problematic. I suspect it is part of the reason secession was pushed so hard and rushed through when it seems many, particularly in the Upper South, were not in favor of it. With such men, issues are viewed as purest white and darkest black, not as shades of gray. No middle ground is allowed, and the other cheek is not turned. Confrontations must be turned into victories, after which they might be willing to throw the loser a bone to console them. In turns of today's rhetoric, they do not seek "win-win" solutions to problems. First they have to win, then they might make your loss less painful.

The North had its share of similar men. The most radical of the Abolitionists and Republicans saw secession and the war in similar terms. But the difference is that the extremists of the South gained control, and that this attitude of all-or-nothing seems more prominent and widespread there. By 1861, the radicals in the North had not achived the power the radicals in the South so obviously had.

IMHO, the problem we are seeing in Davis at the end of the war is symptomatic of how the issue of slavery turned into secession and war. In that sense, Davis deserves a break. In March of 1865, with the Confederacy collapsing around them, a full third of the Confederate Congress was still opposed to enrolling blacks as soldiers, willing to fight the bill to allow it. Those men are no less delusional than Davis, or no less stubborn in releasing their opinions and demands. Davis was one of them; he may epitomize them in many ways.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

OK. I give up. From this minute forward, I will not publicly mention any sympathy for what's his name.

Ole,

Davis was a nice guy -- in private life. He was cantankerous, intransigent, and combative -- in public life.

This isn't something we should be surprised at; it is rather the beau ideal man of the ante-bellum South, if perhaps a bit on the over-done side.

The South of that day idealized the independent, stand-on-his-own man. Men who worked as employees of others were generally looked down upon, possibly because they seemed closer to the servile class. Since success and wealth in the South came from land ownership (and hence slave-ownership eventually), tradesmen, mechanics, and free workers were devalued in the planter society. Southern concepts of honor, when carried to extremes, demanded a man bristle at any public disagreement with his statements or opinions, and be prepared to defend with his life, if necessary, his positions.

Northerners, of course, were not free of such ideas and we can find evidence of somewhat the same ideas in wealthier families. The difference is more that the idea was so dominant in the South that I think you cannot understand that society and the actions of secession without keeping the difference firmly in mind.

Davis was in some ways the idealized Southern planter, particularly one from the frontier areas as Missisippi was in the 1830s and 1840s. Subtract the rough-and-tumble differences from a man like Nathan Bedford Forrest, the harsh nature of his poverty and slave-trade days, and look at the way he responded to a perceived personal challenge: in abstract, is Forrest all that different on a public front, or is his instinctive combative reaction much the same as Davis' reaction to criticism from and conflicts with politicians, newspapermen and generals?

IMHO, the Fire-Eaters probably had more than their share of the type who took pride to an extreme on such issues, and that would make any attempt at compromise very problematic. I suspect it is part of the reason secession was pushed so hard and rushed through when it seems many, particularly in the Upper South, were not in favor of it. With such men, issues are viewed as purest white and darkest black, not as shades of gray. No middle ground is allowed, and the other cheek is not turned. Confrontations must be turned into victories, after which they might be willing to throw the loser a bone to console them. In turns of today's rhetoric, they do not seek "win-win" solutions to problems. First they have to win, then they might make your loss less painful.

The North had its share of similar men. The most radical of the Abolitionists and Republicans saw secession and the war in similar terms. But the difference is that the extremists of the South gained control, and that this attitude of all-or-nothing seems more prominent and widespread there. By 1861, the radicals in the North had not achived the power the radicals in the South so obviously had.

IMHO, the problem we are seeing in Davis at the end of the war is symptomatic of how the issue of slavery turned into secession and war. In that sense, Davis deserves a break. In March of 1865, with the Confederacy collapsing around them, a full third of the Confederate Congress was still opposed to enrolling blacks as soldiers, willing to fight the bill to allow it. Those men are no less delusional than Davis, or no less stubborn in releasing their opinions and demands. Davis was one of them; he may epitomize them in many ways.

Regards,
Tim

[unionblue]

trice,

So Davis was not an evil man? Simply a product of his time and culture?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[william42]

Neil, I can't tell by your email if you're kidding or not, but IMO Davis wasn't evil at all, just a product of his environment, as Trice described the antebellum Southern society above.


And I think he was "out of his element", so to speak, as President. He wasn't the right man for the job. His ego was too fragile. He made bad judgments sometimes based on what he thought was right, and failed to listen to good advice when it came from someone he didn't like personally. He was petty, arrogant, but not evil.


Terry

[whitworth]

seemed to be operating in some fantasy world.

Most historians incorrectly place too much emphasis on the battles -particularly Fredricksburg and Chancellorsville.
These battles would only mean something if the United States surrendered.
By that time the Confederacy had lost territory, it would never again occupy and hold.
The few industrialists in the South told them the problem, during the war. The founding fathers never listened before secession and were unprepared to listen intently during the war.

If one ignores the emancipation proclamation, slavery had already received a stake in its heart by 1863. The Confederacy would never capture and hold any of the western U.S. territories. It would not control Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, parts of Louisiana, Maryland or most of western Virginia.
By 1863, slavery was marked as dead in these areas. Any slave wealth held by the slave oligarchy would remain only in those far fewer Confederate states that could potentially become independent and keep its slaves.
But slavery, as a North American industry was on its death knell.
Even with some limited independence, any future value of slaves would plunge with non-existent markets for excess slaves, outside the core Confederacy of 1863.

By 1863 the United States was raising hundreds and hundreds of thousands of soldiers and spending billions to fight the war.

I think by 1863, it was getting reduced to the hard-core Confederate. Sherman was right. The Confederacy, still fighting by 1864, had to be crushed.