Confederate War Aims

There was no AA Senator elected in 1863 Mississippi. When was the first AA Senator elected in the South post Reconstruction it certainly wasn't as early as 1967.
Leftyhunter
Us senators were elected by the all elected (chosen) by state legislatures in all states until the 17th amendment in 1913. The first black senator seated was Hiram Revels in Mississippi. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Confederate aims unless you are trying to make the case the South wanted to escape domination by the Republican Party in the old union.
 
I'm sure this is how Davis and the Confederacy viewed themselves. But the reality was that the Confederacy coveted areas beyond its own borders of the 11 seceded states. In addition to actively seeking the takeover of 2 loyal states (Missouri and Kentucky), the Confederacy asserted rights to portions of the southwest territories that were acquired by the US after the Mexican War. Military attempts to bring these states and areas under Confederate control continued through much of the war.




True, but The Davis Administration had to live and act as though their public claims had to be seen as being true, no matter their reference to reality. Which is why there was a general reluctance within the confederacy to be seen as aggressors, no matter the reality.
 
Except early in the war the Confedracy tried to size the New Mexico Territory all the way to San Bernardino CA but was halted at the battle of Glorieta Pass. It was a small battle but it would of been known to the British.



Well as I have noted, I agree that the reality did not match the lies or self deceptions of the csa or its government.
Leftyhunter
 
Until Early's raid on Washington I don't believe Washington was ever a goal. Lee knew it was poorly defended at the time. Most of the veteran troops had been pulled out and sent to Grant. Early had a good chance of taking it, but for Lou Wallace slowing him down.

Yes, Early's raid is noteworthy, especially coming later in the war, after the city's defenses had been built up. In a previous post, I quoted Maj Gen John G. Barnard of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in his 1871 report on the Washington defenses. Here's one thing he had to say about the Early raid:

"When Early marched on Washington in 1864 the defenses had been stripped of the disciplined and instructed artillery regiments (numbering about 18,000) which had constituted their garrison, and their places supplied by newly raised 100-days regiments, (Ohio National Guards,) insufficient in numbers and quite uninstructed. Under such circumstances much anxiety was felt on the approach of Early's veterans, flushed with recent success, inspired by the very audacity of their enterprise, and incited by the prize before their eyes. Yet, inadequately manned as they were, the fortifications compelled at least a concentration and an arraying of force on the part of the assailants, and thus gave time for the arrival of succor."

-- J.G. Barnard, Col and Brev Maj Gen, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army. A report on the defenses of Washington, to the chief of engineers, U.S. Army. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1871. Page 91.

Roy B.
 
Within the csa govt, the war aims of the confederacy were fairly explicit. from from the words and actions of its leaders and its Constitution. First, explicitly, complete independence and Second, implicitly, a hegemony of All Slave States in North America(and, perhaps, at a later date, South America, starting with Mexico and/or Cuba).
 
Nonsense. There was plenty of the enshrining of **** in the North (the "Union"). Laws to exclude blacks from voting. Laws to exclude black children from schools. Some places even outlawed black skin.
One of my favourite depiction on the subject:
“Several Negro leaders complained that the white abolitionists devoted so much time to fiery denunciations of southern slavery that they tended to overlook the plight of northern Negroes. One Negro newspaper charged in 1839 that making “abolition in the North” an objective of secondary importance clearly constituted “a primordial defect” in the antislavery movement: “At the moment more is known among abolitionists in the Carolinas, than of the deep and damning thralldom which grinds to dust, the inhabitants of New York. And more effort is made by them to rend the physical chains of Southern slaves than to burst the soul-crushing bondage of the Northern States.”
Leon F. Litwack. North of Slavery, p. 227.
 
One of my favourite depiction on the subject:
“Several Negro leaders complained that the white abolitionists devoted so much time to fiery denunciations of southern slavery that they tended to overlook the plight of northern Negroes. One Negro newspaper charged in 1839 that making “abolition in the North” an objective of secondary importance clearly constituted “a primordial defect” in the antislavery movement: “At the moment more is known among abolitionists in the Carolinas, than of the deep and ****ing thralldom which grinds to dust, the inhabitants of New York. And more effort is made by them to rend the physical chains of Southern slaves than to burst the soul-crushing bondage of the Northern States.”
Leon F. Litwack. North of Slavery, p. 227.
 
What exactly does nothing more needs to be said really mean when you totally misunderstood and misrepresented my posts? Do you understand that 50% exports is 50% of 100% export and not 50% of the GDP? Do you understand that 50% of exports accounted for 5% of the national GDP? You think that 50% exports is an enormous number, but is it is only enormous to the sum of exports but minimal to the sum of the GDP = economics 101.

Cotton was far more than just an export material. That is just one example.

I'm not confusing anything. You are trying to show that cotton was not an important cornerstone of the economy, I was presenting evidence that it was. Cotton was far more to the economy than mere exports. However, my post showed it was one of the most significant exports, which is very important. I also posted my source.

You did not cite your source, nor did you post the percentage breakdown of the GDP. You just stated cotton exports were 5% of GDP and somehow that means cotton was not a critical part of the economy. That makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
Us senators were elected by the all elected (chosen) by state legislatures in all states until the 17th amendment in 1913. The first black senator seated was Hiram Revels in Mississippi. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Confederate aims unless you are trying to make the case the South wanted to escape domination by the Republican Party in the old union.
My point is no AA Senator was elected in 1863 and certainly not in the South.
Leftyhunter
 
Cotton was far more than just an export material. That is just one example.

I'm not confusing anything. You are trying to show that cotton was not an important cornerstone of the economy, I was presenting evidence that it was. Cotton was far more to the economy than mere exports. However, my post showed it was one of the most significant exports, which is very important. I also posted my source.

You did not cite your source, nor did you post the percentage breakdown of the GDP. You just stated cotton exports were 5% of GDP and somehow that means cotton was not a critical part of the economy. That makes no sense.

It makes no sense to you because you don't have an economic background. Yes, you confused my GDP chart with an export source, so you confused yourself. You proved nothing in economics, just in your own mind. Your sources have to do with exports, not GDP. When are you going to understand that GDP percentages are different from export percentages?

Here goes your source, even though you won't understand it to save your life.
www.aier.org › Daily Economy › Economic History
 
My point is no AA Senator was elected in 1863 and certainly not in the South.
Leftyhunter

there was no black chosen in the North until 1967 and how senators were chosen was not a Confederate war aim. I am still waiting for you to tell me when the first black was elected/chosen in California.

Tim Scott has been a US senator from South Carolina since 2013.
 
I have a question for you all that is both general and specific. Why did the Confederate States of America never focus directly on the source of all its troubles - Washington, D.C.? To be more specific, why does it seem that Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee never once defined their goal as the capture of the enemy's Capitol? That may seem absurd as a question; but I find nothing in Confederate discussions that matches the intensity of the call of "On to Richmond". From Day One the politicians on the Union side are focused on capturing the Confederate capitol and obsessed with protecting Washington. Why, with its wonderful ability to fight and move and fight again, did the Army of Northern Virginia never direct its campaigns against the nation's political and military headquarters?
Ethan Rafuse ends his recent book on Lee and the Confederacy by pointing out that smaller armies and poorer nations have defeated larger and wealthier ones. Rafuse mentions the success of Prussia against France as a specific example. The thesis of his book is that Lee had the advantage of mobility yet somehow was unable to use it successfully. If one has to criticize Lee as a commander, it makes far more sense to ask why he and Davis never assumed that their best strategy was to go for Washington as the Prussians went for Paris. A campaign plan that crossed the Potomac at Point of Rocks or White's Ferry and then cut the rail lines from Baltimore would have besieged Washington without having to attack its fortifications. Colonel Jackson's success at Harper's Ferry in May, 1861 offered a possible model.
I raise this question as someone who has the confidence of ignorance. My studies of the civil war have focused entirely on finance - how both sides paid for what they used, not on the battles or campaigns. What brought this question to mind was reading about how completely Buchanan, Stanton and Chase favored the Pennsylvania Railroad over the Baltimore & Ohio in subsidies and contracts before and during the war.
What good would it do to capture DC, unless the entire Union army was defending it? U win wars by defeating armies, not by capturing cities, even capitals. Both the South and the North understood this. Lincoln wanted the ANV captured, not Richmond. Lee wanted the AOP captured, not DC.
 
What good would it do to capture DC, unless the entire Union army was defending it? U win wars by defeating armies, not by capturing cities, even capitals. Both the South and the North understood this. Lincoln wanted the ANV captured, not Richmond. Lee wanted the AOP captured, not DC.
Excellent point! The Russians know this very well; aggressors twice tried to take Moscow to their regret.
 
Back
Top