Featured Where Do You Disagree With the "Conventional Wisdom" on the Civil War?

JeffBrooks

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Location
Hutto, TX
Where do you disagree with the "conventional wisdom" on the Civil War. In other words, what commonly accepted "truths" about the war do you believe are incorrect?

I'll start.

1. I do not think that Gettysburg and Vicksburg marked the turning point of the war and I believe that the Confederacy had as much of a chance at winning the war at the start of 1864 as it did at the start of 1863, if not better.

2. On a strategic level, I think the performance of Ulysses Grant in 1864 was rather poor.

3. Aside from his logistical abilities, I think that Sherman was a poor general.

4. I think that the Confederacy lost the war more due to its own mistakes than due to the superior numbers and resources of the Union.
 
The South had the "common sense" belief that a state entered the union voluntarily they could leave the same way.

But isn't it also just as much "common sense" that if they entered the Union with the consent of the other states, they should leave the same way as well?
 
Vote Here:
What am I spinning?, you declared the Army of the Potomac defeated. What I see is Confederate victory defending against Army of the Potomac offensives (Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Mine Run, for example). Defeated armies don't launch offensives. AoP achieved success defending against Confederate incursions northward (Antietam and Gettysburg), and the AoP defense of Washington D.C. was completely successful. So while you are correct that the ANV accumulated a number of tactical victories over the AoP your declaration that the AoP was defeated is seriously flawed.
Battle of the Bulge for 200 Alex.
 
Vote Here:
But isn't it also just as much "common sense" that if they entered the Union with the consent of the other states, they should leave the same way as well?

It's equally common sense that colonies established by royal charter or act of Parliament would need the consent of King or Parliament to change their status, but the Virginians and others of 1776 believed they could declare independence unilaterally.
 
Vote Here:
By 1863 the north controlled most of the largest population centers in the south. You really should look into that.
When the war began Richmond was a small town with few hotels and not much else, until the CSAa moved its government there, then it exploded to over 100,000, ...
...
New Orleans was the largest population in the south when the war began and one of the economic drivers of the south. Atlanta was a small town relatively, 30,000 approximately. Not what we imagine today. But for the south to loose New Orlelans would be like the north losing New York City.

Getting caught up reading so replying way late....

That post made me think of one small additional point: the close economic ties, for better or worse, between Richmond and New Orleans (oversimplifying a little to include the regions around those cities also). Before the war, one thing Richmond had going for it was being vital to the northern half of the interstate slave trade. Simply due to its size, New Orleans was thrust somewhat reluctantly into the southern connection for the trade.

A solid, smoothly-running slave south needed both areas in order to keep running smoothly, if the African slave trade remained closed and no new outlet for slaves sprung up in the US.

Richmond demanded reassurance that it would continue to be New Orleans' source for slaves, but once it became comfortable with that, it joined them. Moving the capital there just cemented Richmond's acceptance by the rest of the Confederacy.

I guess my admittedly minor side point is that even though Richmond was small before the war as cities go, it had a unique economic influence that spread right down to the deep south and therefore more clout compared to its size, as far as getting the rest of the Confederacy to do what it wanted.
 
Vote Here:
It's equally common sense that colonies established by royal charter or act of Parliament would need the consent of King or Parliament to change their status, but the Virginians and others of 1776 believed they could declare independence unilaterally.

Not comparable since the war had started in 1775 and Independence was declared in 1776.
 
Vote Here:
Not comparable since the war had started in 1775 and Independence was declared in 1776.

So you can declare independence if you're already involved in a shooting war with your government, but it's impermissable to declare independence without prior hostilities?

Congratulations!! We've had a lot of tortured rationales for why self-determination was acceptable in 1776 but not in 1861, but this appears to be the winner! For the moment anyway......
 
Vote Here:
So you can declare independence if you're already involved in a shooting war with your government, but it's impermissable to declare independence without prior hostilities?

Please show where I said that. I said the two situations weren't comparable.

Congratulations!! We've had a lot of tortured rationales for why self-determination was acceptable in 1776 but not in 1861, but this appears to be the winner! For the moment anyway......

Now that you've knocked down your straw man, perhaps you'll address what I actually said.
 
Vote Here:
It's equally common sense that colonies established by royal charter or act of Parliament would need the consent of King or Parliament to change their status, but the Virginians and others of 1776 believed they could declare independence unilaterally.

No, they did not. They knew full well that what they were doing was revolution and illegal, and they accepted the fact that if they didn't assert their independence with arms they would hang for it.
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
Please show where I said that. I said the two situations weren't comparable.

Indeed you did, but the distinction you made was that:

In 1776 the war had already started - you appear to consider a declaration of independence acceptable under those circumstances.

In 1860-61, when the Deep South states seceded and formed the Confederacy, war had not started - you appear to consider that to make their action unacceptable.

Now that we've clarified what you wrote, I will cheerfully acknowledge not seeing the logic behind it.
 
Vote Here:
Indeed you did, but the distinction you made was that:

In 1776 the war had already started - you appear to consider a declaration of independence acceptable under those circumstances.

In 1860-61, when the Deep South states seceded and formed the Confederacy, war had not started - you appear to consider that to make their action unacceptable.

Now that we've clarified what you wrote, I will cheerfully acknowledge not seeing the logic behind it.

Regardless of who said what, I personally see a whole lot more logic in declaring independence from someone who's sacked one of your largest cities and is on the way to doing the same to another one, than declaring independence from someone who's only "crime" was upholding the results of a free and fair election that was held in strict compliance with the Constitution that you yourself ratified.
 
Vote Here:
Indeed you did, but the distinction you made was that:

In 1776 the war had already started - you appear to consider a declaration of independence acceptable under those circumstances.

I said the two situations were not comparable.

In 1860-61, when the Deep South states seceded and formed the Confederacy, war had not started - you appear to consider that to make their action unacceptable.

Again, the two situations are not comparable.

Now that we've clarified what you wrote, I will cheerfully acknowledge not seeing the logic behind it.

It's eminently logical if you don't add to it what I didn't say. All I said was the two situations weren't comparable.

As to whether or not declaring independence is legitimate, I refer you to the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

So when a government becomes destructive to the end of securing the natural rights of its people, it is legitimate for the people to rise up against it.

It is not legitimate to rise up against the government because you want to deny natural rights to others.

It is not legitimate to rise up against the government because you lost a legal election [a light and transient cause].

In 1776 it was legitimate to rise up against the British Government, as the Declaration shows.
In 1861 it was not legitimate to rise up against the US Government.

I hope that clears things up for you.
 
Vote Here:
Not a counter argument but I was pointing out that statement you made about defeated armies not conducting offensive operations. Thats 1 example and there are hundreds more.
T I would suggest that the Wehrmacht had yet to be defeated, they were well on their way to defeat, but not defeated. The launching of the Christmas counter-offensive is evidence of their lack of defeat.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top