Biggest union error?

[atlantis]

Was the Emancipation Proclamation the biggest union error of the conflict. It told slave owning southern unionists their property rights meant nothing to Washington and confirmed the fears of non-slave owning southern whites that the union would force them to compete with freed slaves for jobs.
The EP gave confederates whose morale was flagging reason to continue the fight thus prolonging the war.

Your Thoughts

 

[John Winn]

I don't see the proclamation as an error nor do I think it made much difference regarding confederate motivation to fight.

I think the north's biggest error was when George McClellan was allowed to not attack in the peninsular campaign.

 

[SWS]

Biggest failures in my mind are not using their amphibious power against Lee and going after Charleston and Shreveport instead of Mobile.

 

[atlantis]

The Confederate war effort was flagging; the EP gave confederate soldiers reason to continue. The EP ignored that non slave owners had their own fears.
Without the non-slave owners there is no confederate army.
Since the goal is to restore the union giving the rebels cause to keep fighting seems like a self-inflicted blow.

 

[marktwainenjoyer]

I think the north's biggest error was when George McClellan

There you go.

 

[Saint Jude]

Issuing the Emancipation Proclamation was not an error. Not issuing it would have been disastrous for the Union cause.

 

[RebelWeber]

Was the Emancipation Proclamation the biggest union error of the conflict. It told slave owning southern unionists their property rights meant nothing to Washington and confirmed the fears of non-slave owning southern whites that the union would force them to compete with freed slaves for jobs.
The EP gave confederates whose morale was flagging reason to continue the fight thus prolonging the war.

Your Thoughts

The Union's biggest mistake was not letting the South go peacefully.

 

[J C J Barefoot]

A major blunder was the Lincoln administrations response to Jefferson Davis first call for 100,000 troops. The Union counter request for 75,000 Union troops included a request for Virginia to send 3,500. This at a time when the administration knew the first vote to leave the Union was defeated 2/3 to 1/3. The convention was waiting to see if there would be Union aggression against Va. The Lincoln request served up what the 1/3 wanted. Had Lincoln eliminated the call for Va. troops and sought a direct agreement that Virginia would remain neutral --then Union troops would not enter the state --he may very well have stayed the Old Dominions exit for a period of time. Having done so he would have then appeared to be holding out an olive branch and kept the clock ticking. Even a period of two to three months might have bought Abe more time to mobilize and train the new green Army. Va was looking for a reason to leave the Union and was going to do so eventually. It was never not going to protect slavery. But just think the strategic advantage to the Union had Va. voted to leave in mid to late June or even early July -- and Bull Run and Balls Bluff never did not happen. Had the first conflict on Va soil not been fought until late summer or early fall time would have worked to the advantage of the Union. Abe was trying to buy time at Sumter. He should have never called for the 3,500.

 

[fyrd]

Biggest failures in my mind are not using their amphibious power against Lee and going after Charleston and Shreveport instead of Mobile.

Yes, basically allowing the confederates to concentrate their manpower into a few field armies instead of forcing them to defend more of their interior lines.

 

[JeffBrooks]

The Emancipation Proclamation was, firstly, a political masterstroke by Abraham Lincoln. At a stroke, he made it effectively impossible for Britain or France to intervene on the side of the Confederacy. The British and French peoples were staunchly anti-slavery and would not countenance their governments supporting the South once Lincoln had made the elimination of slavery a clear war aim.

Second, while he did pay a price with many Democrats (as he had expected), the Emancipation Proclamation helped unify the bulk of the Northern people in the collective war effort. The support of the Democrats was lukewarm, anyway, and better a clear enemy than an ambiguous ally.

Third, once the Emancipation Proclamation took effect, the manpower resources of the nation's black population, North as well as South, was opened to the Union war effort. By the end of the war, fully one-tenth of the Union army was made up of black troops.

To answer the argument that the Emancipation Proclamation was a mistake because it strengthened Confederate resistance against the Union, I ask whether there was any significant Unionist feeling in the South in, say, mid-1862?

 

[tony_gunter]

Was the Emancipation Proclamation the biggest union error of the conflict. It told slave owning southern unionists their property rights meant nothing to Washington and confirmed the fears of non-slave owning southern whites that the union would force them to compete with freed slaves for jobs.
The EP gave confederates whose morale was flagging reason to continue the fight thus prolonging the war.

Your Thoughts

Your theory is that the Emancipation Proclamation placed the Confederates on Death Ground. I would argue they began the war on Death Ground, and the biggest mistake of the early war was not recognizing that fact.

1860 sermon:

 

[WinterLeia]

(Sorry, someone said this already. I'd erase it, but I can't).

Lincoln's major fear was not the Confederate will to fight, but keeping the European countries out of the war and not recognizing the Confederacy as a legitimate government. It was an unmitigated success, because it did exactly what it was intended to accomplish. It did drive up Northern desertions and adversely affect election results against the Republicans in some Northern states, which were probably the most serious ramifications that came from it. But black recruits dulled the effects of the desertions, and such ramifications were consequences that Lincoln probably anticipated and was willing to take a calculated risk on, because Britain or France getting involved in the war would have been far worse.

 

[WinterLeia]

It wasn't death ground. I'm not saying the South didn't suffer due to the invasion. But death ground only refers to extreme situations in which surrender absolutely means death to both soldiers and civilians. If people are saying that about the Civil War, then their ideological views are moving them to try to paint the north as being as brutal as the Nazis or Stalin's Red Army, which is not the case in any sort of of interpretation that is actually based on history. Had that been the case, people like Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee would have been tortured and executed after the war. There would have been wholesale hangings of at least half the Confederate army, and forget about any legal arguments on secession. When talking about armies that put their opponents on death ground, they don't care about stuff like that. They make their own laws that aren't based on even the trappings of civilization. And neither side in the Civil War deserves such a comparison.

 

[damYankee]

It is intriguing to me that Buchanan's inaction to thwart the rebellion while it was still in it's infancy is ignored by every forum member, he gets a go home free card?
Had he reacted upon the first rumor of secession/rebellion the war may have been prevented in it's totality. I hold him at least as responsible as Jefferson Davis.

 

[WinterLeia]

It is intriguing to me that Buchanan's inaction to thwart the rebellion while it was still in it's infancy is ignored by every forum member, he gets a go home free card?
Had he reacted upon the first rumor of secession/rebellion the war may have been prevented in it's totality. I hold him at least as responsible as Jefferson Davis.

Do you believe that he knew that the Vice President was funneling supplies to Southern States for the war or that that was actually happening?

 

[damYankee]

Do you believe that he knew that the Vice President was funneling supplies to Southern States for the war or that that was actually happening?

I do, there were many thousands of Southern Unionist who were left hung out to dry by the criminal inaction of Buchanan and the covert support of the rebellion by elected officials.
Robert E Lee in letters to his son voiced his unhappiness with the rebellion,
So the question we should kick around is, how many men like Lee would have answered the call to subdue the rebellion had Buchanan issued that call early, Before the flames had spread beyond S. Carolina?

 

[Library Lady]

It is intriguing to me that Buchanan's inaction to thwart the rebellion while it was still in it's infancy is ignored by every forum member, he gets a go home free card?
Had he reacted upon the first rumor of secession/rebellion the war may have been prevented in it's totality. I hold him at least as responsible as Jefferson Davis.

I'm not sure Buchanan could have stopped it even if he had tried. The South makes a big deal of being an honor culture. If you run your mouth for years about being mistreated by the Union and wanting out of the Union, then at some point you're going to need to "put up or shut up." Shutting up (i.e., backing down) is not really a choice for an honor culture. They're going to go because they have to. It may be sooner or it may be a bit later, but they're going.

If Robert E. Lee is so unhappy about the prospect of rebellion, then why isn't he saying so publicly and especially in Virginia? He's FFV even if his father turned out to be a wastrel who abandoned his family and basically left them broke. He married into George Washington's family. He's a gent who should have clout, but maybe I'm giving him too much credit.

 

[damYankee]

I'm not sure Buchanan could have stopped it even if he had tried. The South makes a big deal of being an honor culture. If you run your mouth for years about being mistreated by the Union and wanting out of the Union, then at some point you're going to need to "put up or shut up." Shutting up (i.e., backing down) is not really a choice for an honor culture. They're going to go because they have to. It may be sooner or it may be a bit later, but they're going.

If Robert E. Lee is so unhappy about the prospect of rebellion, then why isn't he saying so publicly and especially in Virginia? He's FFV even if his father turned out to be a wastrel who abandoned his family and basically left them broke. He married into George Washington's family. He's a gent who should have clout, but maybe I'm giving him too much credit.

Again, there were thousands of Pro Union Southerners (who were just as proud as their pro rebellion counterparts) who had no aid or protection afforded them by the president or the federals.
On Jan. 16 1861 R.E. Lee wrote

"I think of the occupants of both very often, and hope some day to see them again. I may have the opportunity soon, for if the Union is dissolved I shall return to Virginia to share the fortune of my people. But before so great a calamity befalls the country I hope all honorable means of maintaining the Constitution and the equal rights of the people will be first exhausted. Tell your father he must not allow Maryland to be tacked on to South Carolina before the just demands of the South have been fairly presented to the North and rejected. Then, if the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are denied us, and the citizens of one portion of the country are granted privileges not extended to the other, we can, with a clear conscience, separate. I am for maintaining all our rights, not for abandoning all for the sake of one. Our national rights, liberty at home and security abroad, our lands, navy, forts, dockyards, arsenals, and institutions of every kind. It will result in war I know, fierce, bloody war. But so will secession, for it is revolution and war at last, and cannot be otherwise, and we might as well look at it in its true character. There is a long message, A—, for your father, and a grave one, which I had not intended to put in my letter to you, but it is a subject on which my serious thoughts often turn, for as an American citizen I prize my Government and country highly, and there is no sacrifice I am not willing to make for their preservation, save that of honor. I trust there is wisdom and patriotism enough in the country to save them, for I cannot anticipate so great a calamity to the nation as the dissolution of the Union."

Buchanan's inaction left a vacuum of command, with no action the wave continued to rise. Lee was then stationed at Fort Mason in San Antonio, Texas, it should be noted that
1. Lee refused to hand over federal property to Texas disunionists, insisting on holding his position.
2. While in San Antonio, Lee was forced to confront Texans who had already begun to fly secessionist banners, yet he continued to protect federal interests.
3. Despite his later service to the Confederacy, during this critical time (early 1861), Lee was acting as a loyal US Army office
So it seems that Lee did make a statement,

 

[tony_gunter]

It wasn't death ground. I'm not saying the South didn't suffer due to the invasion. But death ground only refers to extreme situations in which surrender absolutely means death to both soldiers and civilians. If people are saying that about the Civil War, then their ideological views are moving them to try to paint the north as being as brutal as the Nazis or Stalin's Red Army, which is not the case in any sort of of interpretation that is actually based on history. Had that been the case, people like Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee would have been tortured and executed after the war. There would have been wholesale hangings of at least half the Confederate army, and forget about any legal arguments on secession. When talking about armies that put their opponents on death ground, they don't care about stuff like that. They make their own laws that aren't based on even the trappings of civilization. And neither side in the Civil War deserves such a comparison.

So you apparently didn't bother to read the sermon attached?

Extinction. That's what subjection to a Republican president meant to many people in the south. That's Death Ground.

 

[JerryD]

So you apparently didn't bother to read the sermon attached?

Extinction. That's what subjection to a Republican president meant to many people in the south. That's Death Ground.

If they felt that way, it was only due to delusion. Fact is, Lincoln could not have done really that much that would have affected their lives in a meaningful way. He certainly could not abolish slavery. And slavery expansion into the territories was the law of the land due to Dred Scott. Secession was a horrible decision. Alexander Stephens made this very point in the debates in Georgia. Stephens was opposed to secession because he said nothing had yet been done affect the south, and he thought at a minimum they should wait until some actual harm was committed. Good point, if you ask me.

 

[benmax]

The Union's biggest mistake was not letting the South go peacefully.

I agree.

As a basic standpoint.......I wonder this too. If the South was so repugnant in the eyes of the Union and vilified by the North, why not just let 'em go? Why would they WANT them in the Union? After failed attempts at compromise......the government of the day could have just said....."see ya later alligator".

Combat seems like one heck of an effort to keep your neighbors close who it seems you don't even like.