Biggest Confederate Error

[Ole Miss]

Davis was charged with Treason but never prosecuted and released in 1868. When President Johnson decided that the charge of Treason would not be issued against "every person who directly or indirectly participated in the late insurrection or rebellion" Davis was released by the Federal authorties.
Regards
David

 

[JOHN42768]

The failure to adjust from an all agrarian society based upon slavery and eschewing the establishment of factories and joining the Industrial Revolution was a determining factor in the defeat of the Confederacy. This is a difficult question to address in a "condensed" format as there is not a one on answer to this thread.

I look forward to more posts and learning additional details about this question.
Regards
David

Completely agree. The idea that without manufacturing industry, raw materials and railroads they would be able to maintain the challenge to their means doesn't cut the mustard.

 

[leftyhunter]

We do know that Davis was the wrong person.
There was a lack of takers for the position acceptable to the Southern Elites, but a lot of capable men went into the military. An unknown for sure.

Had Davis waited 6 months to a year and organized his military and his political base, things would not have been automatically bad.
At no time was the fifth column a threat, but it was an asset.
Avoid war does not require much in the way of white manpower.
The South had adequate agricultural resources, however, the lack of preparation meant a worn out railroad system by mid-war.
The Industrial Base is an issue, but with preparation, it may not have been so much of a problem.
I do not see access to European Immigration as a problem.
All roads to Indendence are steep and slippery.

The black people of the South we're indeed a huge Fifth Column for the Confederacy.
1. Of the 180k USCT troops the vast majority where Southern born.
2. Runaway labor is not reliable labor and that occurred quite a bit.
3. Even Lee admitted that slave's were a major and reliable source of information for Union military intelligence.
3. Industrialization requires an adequate amount of skilled labor. It's not a coincidence that the blockade runners and Raider's had to be built in the UK. It's no coincidence that there were a number of explosions in Confederate gun powder plants.
4.European immigration was absolutely critical to Union victory. Immigrants constituted 25% of the Union Army plus forty percent of the Union Navy. Immigrants were needed to replace loss's of military manpower. No doubt immigrants were a crucial part of the Union industrial work force. The Union Army actively recruited soldiers in the UK.
Not seeing how a specie backed dollar magically negates the above Union advantages.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I have always wondered if there were any attempts by the North to help the South modernize so they could realistically end dependence upon slavery? I mean the bottom line for not shifting away from that agrarian society was the almighty dollar of King Cotton. I have pondered starting my graduate work on that particular angle. Just a thought . Wonderful topic as always.

Why would there be? The South was wealthier then the North although the wealth was very narrowly distributed to a small percentage of the white population.
Leftyhunter

 

[jgoodguy]

2. Runaway labor is not reliable labor and that occurred quite a bit.

True, but little of the slave labor ran off unless the Union was nearby. No war, no runaways.

4.European immigration was absolutely critical to Union victory. Immigrants constituted 25% of the Union Army plus forty percent of the Union Navy. Immigrants were needed to replace loss's of military manpower. No doubt immigrants were a crucial part of the Union industrial work force. The Union Army actively recruited soldiers in the UK.

Nice, but the South could enlist a greater percent of their labor force because the slaves would make up the shortfall.

1. Of the 180k USCT troops the vast majority where Southern born.

True but the USCT was a regular military force, not a 5th column.

3. Even Lee admitted that slave's were a major and reliable source of information for Union military intelligence.

True again, but only if Union forces were nearby.

3. Industrialization requires an adequate amount of skilled labor. It's not a coincidence that the blockade runners and Raider's had to be built in the UK. It's no coincidence that there were a number of explosions in Confederate gun powder plants.

Correct, but the South did not lose a battle for a lack of blockade runners or that matter gunpowder, material`, artillery and so on.

Not seeing how a specie backed dollar magically negates the above Union advantages.
Leftyhunter

White gold, fluffy cotton was the oil of the mid 19th century. True again, but not a contention of mine. My position is that patience magically negates those Union advantages.

Don't provoke Lincoln, spread some gold around to the copperheads, export cotton like crazy, leave Lincoln in a political morass, seduce Virginia for her industry. Crash industrialization program gets an industry deeper South. It is firing on Sumter before preparing for a war that got the CSA in trouble. Could be the slaveholder mentality and the resulting honor culture had something do with it.

 

[CSAPatriot]

I always thought the biggest mistake was that Jefferson Davis did not issue his own Emancipation Proclamation for Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, New Jersey, and later, West Virginia. It would have exposed the farcical and hollow nature of Lincoln's EP, and provided a stark reminder to all that slavery was perfectly legal in the United States.

 

[BillO]

This is an interesting thesis. But it seems to have a partial flaw.
If cotton had been traded for specie, and Confederate soldiers paid in specie or paper backed by specie, food and other needs for the soldiers families would still be an issue. Where was the production to come from, the production of food and other needs? What would the soldier's money buy if there was a lack of production at home?

Production really wasn't as big an issue as transportation.

 

[Robin Lesjovitch]

Why would there be? The South was wealthier then the North although the wealth was very narrowly distributed to a small percentage of the white population.
Leftyhunter

It is questionable as to how "wealthy" the "South" was. "On paper" is one thing, in practice quite another. Northern factory owners, Western mine owners and Southern planters had things in common. When their enterprises were profitable, they had positive assets. If things went badly, the enterprises became liabilities. Unproductive factories and mines ceased operations and were mostly worthless... and now a difference... plantations, because they generally still had "paper" value, continued, with the owner going deeper into debt.
Compared to the Northeast, the South had little money and the apparent wealth of the planter upper class was supported by the old credit system that had much of its assets in hock to mostly Northern lenders. In years of crop profitability, planters might become unburdened from debt, but their assets were far from mobile.
To make a proper assessment of Southern wealth, two sets of books would be needed. One set defining "paper" values and another defining a "practical" set of values, that is, what the assets might practically be converted into. In 1861 the only US currency was coin. AS the Civil war began, a typical planter's assets could not be sold for much (except on paper) as there was very little coin (specie) in the South. The South's wealth needs to be treated very subjectively.

 

[Robin Lesjovitch]

Production really wasn't as big an issue as transportation.

I certainly agree that transportation was a serious problem for the Confederate government. I'm not sure how silver in a Reb soldier's pocket would have helped that. The soldier who left ranks to go home would have done so to provide, that is help produce what was needed, there at home, not 100 miles away.. I think my point was that coins in a CSA soldiers pocket would have done almost nothing to help a family that had depended on him and was in trouble. Certainly there were areas in the CSA that at times produced much more food that it consumed. And, that food could not be put in a general distribution system, as none existed in the CSA. I'm not sure that paying a soldier in specie would have produced such a system.
I am reminded of one of my favorite USSR stories.
A fellow walks through a store front an looks around.
"You have no fish today?"
"Comrade, this is a meat market. Here, we have no meat. Across the street is a fish shop. There, they have no fish."

 

[Stratagemo]

It is questionable as to how "wealthy" the "South" was. "On paper" is one thing, in practice quite another. Northern factory owners, Western mine owners and Southern planters had things in common. When their enterprises were profitable, they had positive assets. If things went badly, the enterprises became liabilities. Unproductive factories and mines ceased operations and were mostly worthless... and now a difference... plantations, because they generally still had "paper" value, continued, with the owner going deeper into debt.
Compared to the Northeast, the South had little money and the apparent wealth of the planter upper class was supported by the old credit system that had much of its assets in hock to mostly Northern lenders. In years of crop profitability, planters might become unburdened from debt, but their assets were far from mobile.
To make a proper assessment of Southern wealth, two sets of books would be needed. One set defining "paper" values and another defining a "practical" set of values, that is, what the assets might practically be converted into. In 1861 the only US currency was coin. AS the Civil war began, a typical planter's assets could not be sold for much (except on paper) as there was very little coin (specie) in the South. The South's wealth needs to be treated very subjectively.

Regarding the liquidity of assets, Southern slaveholders actually advantages over their peers in the Northern states, in that slaves themselves were easily and commonly used as collateral for loans or could be sold to raise capital.

So in that sense, an argument could be made that slave owners actually had a larger proportion of liquid assets (or at least easily convertible assets) than did their non-slave holding counterparts.

 

[Robin Lesjovitch]

Regarding the liquidity of assets, Southern slaveholders actually advantages over their peers in the Northern states, in that slaves themselves were easily and commonly used as collateral for loans or could be sold to raise capital.

So in that sense, an argument could be made that slave owners actually had a larger proportion of liquid assets (or at least easily convertible assets) than did their non-slave holding counterparts.

I actually agree.
The issue is how a planter could use proceeds from selling off assets. Before the war, a planter might get lucky and get a respectable return from a sell, but selling slaves did little but decrease the paper worth of the planter. The usual custom was to 'hire out' slaves. To an extent, the planter was a little bit enslaved himself by the system. Lose assets, lose credit.

 

[GwilymT]

You start the commentary by stating Jefferson Davis was imprisoned for two years. Of what crime was he convicted that he was imprisoned for so long?

Not material to the OP. If you'd like to discuss the reasons for Davis' incarceration, please start a thread to address that issue. If you have an opinion of what, if any, was the CSA's biggest mistake, please join the discussion.

 

[GwilymT]

I always thought the biggest mistake was that Jefferson Davis did not issue his own Emancipation Proclamation for Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, New Jersey, and later, West Virginia. It would have exposed the farcical and hollow nature of Lincoln's EP, and provided a stark reminder to all that slavery was perfectly legal in the United States.

Did Davis or those around him ever consider such a move?

 

[Stratagemo]

I actually agree.
The issue is how a planter could use proceeds from selling off assets. Before the war, a planter might get lucky and get a respectable return from a sell, but selling slaves did little but decrease the paper worth of the planter. The usual custom was to 'hire out' slaves. To an extent, the planter was a little bit enslaved himself by the system. Lose assets, lose credit.

I might not be clear on the point your making, so my apologies if I've misunderstood! I'm not sure how the issue is the use of proceeds from a sale of assets, in that in assuming that the slave owner would be selling assets (be they slaves or otherwise) to raise capital for whatever use was required (be it to pay debt, invest, purchase goods, etc.).

I agree that certainly the sale of any asset could then decrease the wealth of the planter, depending on the use of the capital raised. If it was done to re-invest however, it could actually raise the overall wealth of the investor. If used to pay debt or (as an example), it would certainly reduce that individual's overall wealth.

I don't think there's a lot getting lucky regarding the sale of slave, as arguably the price of slaves (and their labor value) consistently trended upwards over the period of 1804-1860. Which shows just was a good, but tragic, investment slaves were. Here's a graph that shows the increase in slave prices in the US:

Average Price of a Slave Over Time

Source: Historical Statistics, Table Bb212. Average Slave Price.

Absolutely agree that slave owners would hire out slaves if they were surplus to requirements or for profit. Which would be a great way to gain income without actually losing the asset. Which is something that many non-slave owners might not be able to do with many of their assets.

I suppose my point is that slaves provided slave owners with a remarkably useful and valuable asset which helps to demonstrate, in my view, the terrible flexibility of the slave system.

 

[Andersonh1]

I'd have to say the biggest error was firing on Sumter. I understand, militarily, why the decision was made to do it, but it put them in the position of firing first, and gave Lincoln free reign to respond.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Immigrants constituted 25% of the Union Army

But how many of them arrived in the US after the war started?
It is my impression that the number of immigrants fell a lot during the war.

 

[Robin Lesjovitch]

I might not be clear on the point your making, so my apologies if I've misunderstood! I'm not sure how the issue is the use of proceeds from a sale of assets, in that in assuming that the slave owner would be selling assets (be they slaves or otherwise) to raise capital for whatever use was required (be it to pay debt, invest, purchase goods, etc.).

I agree that certainly the sale of any asset could then decrease the wealth of the planter, depending on the use of the capital raised. If it was done to re-invest however, it could actually raise the overall wealth of the investor. If used to pay debt or (as an example), it would certainly reduce that individual's overall wealth.

I don't think there's a lot getting lucky regarding the sale of slave, as arguably the price of slaves (and their labor value) consistently trended upwards over the period of 1804-1860. Which shows just was a good, but tragic, investment slaves were. Here's a graph that shows the increase in slave prices in the US:

Average Price of a Slave Over Time

View attachment 214658
Source: Historical Statistics, Table Bb212. Average Slave Price.

Absolutely agree that slave owners would hire out slaves if they were surplus to requirements or for profit. Which would be a great way to gain income without actually losing the asset. Which is something that many non-slave owners might not be able to do with many of their assets.

I suppose my point is that slaves provided slave owners with a remarkably useful and valuable asset which helps to demonstrate, in my view, the terrible flexibility of the slave system.

A very useful graph. It shows the up and downs of planting as much as the cost of slaves. To be fair about this matter, the planters were doing better per capita from 1858-1860 than manufacturers were doing. There were a number of reasons for that. To some extent the graph explains why some planters favored secession. But that I think is another discussion.

 

[unionblue]

You start the commentary by stating Jefferson Davis was imprisoned for two years. Of what crime was he convicted that he was imprisoned for so long?

Cotton envy.

 

[leftyhunter]

But how many of them arrived in the US after the war started?
It is my impression that the number of immigrants fell a lot during the war.

Not as much as one would think.@was

But how many of them arrived in the US after the war started?
It is my impression that the number of immigrants fell a lot during the war.

Not as many as one would think . @wausaubob has a good chart on that subject.
Leftyhunter

 

[Mike Griffith]

That's easy: The biggest Confederate error was electing Jefferson Davis as president. Hands down. No-brainer. Open and shut. The vast majority of the Confederacy's woes resulted from the election of Davis as president.