Biggest Confederate Error

[thomas aagaard]

Exactly. That hardly constitutes an order to use force.

But it do want this done immediately.
That don't allow room for starving out the garrison... and the last part make it clear that using force is an expected solution.

It is basically telling the president to give the garrison the ultimatum. Surrender or we attack...
And that was exactly what was done.

Sure it might not be a legally binding resolution. But it surely tell the president that Congress (as an expression of the will of the people) want this done.. now.

 

[Jimklag]

the authority of this Government, either by negotiation, or force

@thomas aagaard , I believe the resolution states that they are authorizing Davis to use force or to negotiate.

Resolved, That it is the sense of this Congress that immediate steps should be taken to obtain possession of Forts Sumter and Pickens by the authority of this Government, either by negotiation, or force, as early as practicable, and the President is hereby authorized to make all necessary military preparations for carrying this resolution into effect.

 

[Jimklag]

@jgoodguy and @cash , I'd like your opinions on this. If the CSA congress had gone through with a formal declaration of war, would it have helped or hurt in the international sphere? I don't have a fully formed idea, but it seems to me it might have helped them to acquire allies, or at least sponsors. I understand why the USA couldn't do it, but it seems if the south had done it they might have looked more like a real country to the countries whose recognition they coveted.

 

[thomas aagaard]

As I see it it would have been a clear symbolic action that is normally reserved for Sovereign states.
I think it would have helped internationally.
(And this is why The US congress never did this)

 

[OpnCoronet]

Without the attack on Sumter Lincoln would have a hard time doing anything serious about it.

I agree(to a certain extent), assuming the question of the OP starts with the beginning of the War and not afte it had already started.

Initiating the War was a very big mistake. But, after the wars beginning, then foreign recognition would be paramount and, of course, IMO, building up of cash reserves outside the borders of the united States and in foreign reserves of credit and negotiating trade relations, would be very important in accomplishing recognition. However, as I, et. al., noted, that is a very large order and technically and legally complex, requiring, I believe, trained and experienced negotiators and, from the record, they were in very short supply in the confederacy, if Mason and Slidell are examples of the best and brightest the confederacy had to offer.

 

[cash]

@jgoodguy and @cash , I'd like your opinions on this. If the CSA congress had gone through with a formal declaration of war, would it have helped or hurt in the international sphere? I don't have a fully formed idea, but it seems to me it might have helped them to acquire allies, or at least sponsors. I understand why the USA couldn't do it, but it seems if the south had done it they might have looked more like a real country to the countries whose recognition they coveted.

I don't think it would have mattered. They were still a group attempting to break away, and the attitudes and actions toward them would remain the same.

"The requirement of government is, however, strictly applied when part of the population of a state tries to break away to form a new state. There is no rule of international law which forbids secession from an existing state; nor is there any rule which forbids the mother-state to crush the secessionary movement, if it can. Whatever the outcome of the struggle, it will be accepted as legal in the eyes of international law. But, so long as the mother-state is still struggling to crush the secessionary movement, it cannot be said that the secessionary authorities are strong enough to maintain control over their territory with any certainty of permanence. Traditionally, therefore, states refrained from recognising the secessionary movement as an independent state until its victory was assured. For instance, no country recognised the independence of the southern states during the American Civil War (1861-5)." [Michael Akehurst, A Modern Introduction to International Law, p. 57]

 

[leftyhunter]

@jgoodguy and @cash , I'd like your opinions on this. If the CSA congress had gone through with a formal declaration of war, would it have helped or hurt in the international sphere? I don't have a fully formed idea, but it seems to me it might have helped them to acquire allies, or at least sponsors. I understand why the USA couldn't do it, but it seems if the south had done it they might have looked more like a real country to the countries whose recognition they coveted.

Historically speaking nations get involved in Civil War's when it is perceived by that nation that it is necessary to do so. Nations have never required a specific legislative statement from one side or another to involve themselves in a Civil War.
Leftyhunter

 

[Robin Lesjovitch]

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.

Who would have been more suitable?

 

[Jimklag]

Who would have been more suitable?

Toombs, RMT Hunter, John C. Breckenridge, James Chesnut, George Randolph - all had senatorial and/or cabinet experience equal to Davis, and all were known to be less touchy and more diplomatic than him.

 

[BlueandGrayl]

There has been a debate over whether or not choosing the Confederacy instead chose to send cotton to Britain and France rather than withdrawing it would have helped them in the long run or not.

On one hand Britain had cotton from Egypt and India it could choose during the blockade however most British textile factories still used Southern/Confederate cotton a lot and it was a major drawing factor alongside the belief that the North could not win over the South for British/French recognition-meditation, we clearly saw this with the cotton famine of 1862 which caused unemployment or shortened work hours for British workers because of the lack of cotton from the South (see The Illustrated Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era and Blue and Gray Diplomacy). Britain and France also had a lot of financial and material resources useful for the Confederacy.

So perhaps if the Confederacy chose to send cotton to the British and French markets as fast as they can during the blockade financially it could help them since they get resources and finances from those countries to help them in their war.

 

[leftyhunter]

The honored secessionsts simply thought it is different this time. A failure also common to a particular street in a Northern port city.

Perhaps we can kindly think of honored secessionists as being rather delusional . The slave owners panicked when the good Parson wanted to distribute arms to the slaves but didn't panic at the thought of the Federal government replicating the same technique as the British Army did 80 odd year's earlier.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Toombs, RMT Hunter, John C. Breckenridge, James Chesnut, George Randolph - all had senatorial and/or cabinet experience equal to Davis, and all were known to be less touchy and more diplomatic than him.

Yet the delegates at the Secessionist Convention in Montgomery overwhelmingly chose Jefferson Davis. Arguably so much for the argument " the wisdom of the crowds". So to speak the delegates were the Yelp of the South.
Leftyhunter

 

[Robin Lesjovitch]

Toombs, RMT Hunter, John C. Breckenridge, James Chesnut, George Randolph - all had senatorial and/or cabinet experience equal to Davis, and all were known to be less touchy and more diplomatic than him.

OK. But, as far as I know, only Chestnut and Toombs were available.

 

[damYankee]

Secession was the biggest mistake. While I agree that the mishandling of the sale of cotton before the US Navy could set up blockades was a big mistake, it all goes back to secession.
By abandoning your status as a member state of the Union those Southern States also forfeited all representation in DC. They had since the birth of the Union, been a voting block that could get what they wanted and did so regularly.
They had equal representation in the Senate, legal standing before the courts. Once they left the Union they had no legal status before the court and no representation on Capital Hill.

 

[Jimklag]

OK. But, as far as I know, only Chestnut and Toombs were available.

NO. All the others were in the CSA cabinet or congress - so they would have been available as presidential candidates.

 

[jgoodguy]

Perhaps we can kindly think of honored secessionists as being rather delusional . The slave owners panicked when the good Parson wanted to distribute arms to the slaves but didn't panic at the thought of the Federal government replicating the same technique as the British Army did 80 odd year's earlier.
Leftyhunter

The exemplary foresighted secessionists would have succeeded with an average mudsill northerner in as president and the accidental president Davis becomes a national hero. The North drew the Lincoln card, a deuce that against all odds, proved to be a trump card.

 

[Robin Lesjovitch]

NO. All the others were in the CSA cabinet or congress - so they would have been available as presidential candidates.

Well, Kentucky and Virginia were not part of the Confederacy when the CSA organized and chose a president. The fellows in those states were not in consideration.

 

[BlueandGrayl]

Well, Kentucky and Virginia were not part of the Confederacy when the CSA organized and chose a president. The fellows in those states were not in consideration.

The former was incredibly divided and did not want to be either Unionist or Confederate when it declared neutrality.

Kentucky had a pro-Confederate governor and a pro-Union legislature the latter of whom still wished to stay neutral only because of Leonidas Polk's idiotic invasion of the state did they became full on Unionist.

But before that John C. Fremont had already issued a proclaimation in Missouri freeing any slaves and death penalty for guerillas this caused a lot of outrage in Kentucky which did not want to fight a war that involved destroying an institution they cherished so much even Abraham Lincoln rescinded it or told Fremont to change it out of fear of alienating Kentuckians and Missourians from the Union cause keep in mind this was early in the war's conflict and Lincoln had to appear more moderate and build political trust in these two states so they wouldn't be lost to Southern/Confederate secession. For instance a band of Kentucky volunteers dropped their guns and deserted upon hearing the news of Fremont's proclaimation (see Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation).

Virginia of course was the important state in the Civil War not only was it the home of the Confederate capital of Richmond and possessed a lot of industry but it was where some of the important battles were fought such as Bull Run/Manassas I and II, Cold Harbor, Appottmatox etc.

 

[Jimklag]

Well, Kentucky and Virginia were not part of the Confederacy when the CSA organized and chose a president. The fellows in those states were not in consideration.

That's true, but Davis was originally chosen as an interim president. They could have run for the permanent presidency.

 

[leftyhunter]

The exemplary foresighted secessionists would have succeeded with an average mudsill northerner in as president and the accidental president Davis becomes a national hero. The North drew the Lincoln card, a deuce that against all odds, proved to be a trump card.

That thought involves going down a lot of rabbit holes. We just can't know how the slave owning class would of reacted to a President Douglas. We know they wouldn't of had a problem with a President Breckenridge. Bell never addressed the issue of slavery during his presidential campaign. Most likely the slave owners could of lived with President Bell.
We do know the slave owners didn't think things through regarding the potential arming of slaves to be used against them.
Leftyhunter