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

 

[benmax]

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.

I think this is a very interesting observation. We need to remember that they were all people of their time. It was 164 years ago now........a vastly different culture, language, education, global understanding, even genetics.

The comparison between those times and now are astronomically different, but even the comparison between the North and South back THEN was different.

The whole thing was a powder keg and a dreadful, dreadful mess even before The War.

 

[DanSBHawk]

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.

Maybe if the south had tried to come up with a peaceful legitimate method to go their own way, the north would have went along with it. Unfortunately the south chose demands and ultimatums and then violence. That was the absolute worst way to go about it.

 

[damYankee]

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.

Can you provide any documentation to show that " the South was so repugnant in the eyes of the Union?"

 

[WinterLeia]

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.

I read the sermon. But I don't believe that was ever the purpose of the Proclamation or that "extinction" was really the word for what was going on. What happened is that the South got outplayed by Lincoln and they were mad about it. They were trying to court the European powers, despite the strong anti-slavery sentiments such people held. By turning the Union army into a liberation army with just a stroke of his pen, Lincoln deftly made it impossible for Europeans to support the Confederacy without it being a public display of putting national interests ahead of their national ideals. That's not extinction. As I said in another thread, Lincoln did not create the sentiments that made the Proclamation so effective. He only recognized that they were sentiments he could make use of to drive a wedge a between the Confederacy and their prospective allies. And it was not like the Confederacy was going to give up the fight at that point anyway. He even provided that option, probably knowing that they wouldn't take it. So, I don't think it lengthened the war or made them anymore determined to fight than they already were. Death ground would have done both.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Can you provide any documentation to show that " the South was so repugnant in the eyes of the Union?"

Exactly. And then not to mention completely and ignorantly omitting the fact that that one can disagree with someone without viewing them as repugnant (at least until they open fire on your troops).

 

[Piedone]

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.

He should have done so - but he probably never would have done so: I am pretty sure Lee always treaded extremely carefully.

His father had severely damaged the family reputation - hence Lee was disproportionally reluctant to expose himself - especially not with openly expressing dissent from his "peergroup"
- which would have been the Virginian tidewater "aristocrats".

This should also have been the reason for his kind of wiggly-waggly stance
in the days before resigning from "the old army".

 

[rvbgrif]

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.

Strongly agree with this.

The Union's biggest mistake was doing absolutely nothing to stop secession, until April 1861. Then fighting the Battle of Fort Sumter and losing Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina.

An absolute terrible blunder! The Civil War would have been over in under a year.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a solid maneuver by Lincoln, as it was far enough along that he could safely implement it and it kept the Europeans out of the Civil War.

 

[rbasin]

Not listening to Gen. Scott at the outset to better prepare the fresh forces with training and giving the industrial base time to stockpile materiel before commencing strong offensive action. Both sides expecting a short war at the outset turned it into longer bloodier one.

Probably the best answer. Hurrying forces to fight was a huge blunder

 

[atlantis]

Since the EP could not be enforced in confederate territory, the only territory that was subject to the EP it clearly was nothing more than a tool to use fear as a means of forcing the rebels to lay down arms. Clearly it backfired on Lincoln and sugarcoating cannot hide that.
The EP is a morally repugnant ploy using the enslaved as pawns, if the rebels had accepted the terms slavery may well have lasted another 50 years in the USA. This error huge in scope strengthened rebel resolve and kept most slaves working for the rebel cause right to the end. Lincoln the railroad lawyer and backwoods oaf not union generals is responsible for the biggest union error.

 

[milhistbuff1]

Probably the best answer. Hurrying forces to fight was a huge blunder

Thank you. Would also add, not going with Anaconda from the outset.

 

[tony_gunter]

I read the sermon. But I don't believe that was ever the purpose of the Proclamation or that "extinction" was really the word for what was going on. What happened is that the South got outplayed by Lincoln and they were mad about it. They were trying to court the European powers, despite the strong anti-slavery sentiments such people held. By turning the Union army into a liberation army with just a stroke of his pen, Lincoln deftly made it impossible for Europeans to support the Confederacy without it being a public display of putting national interests ahead of their national ideals. That's not extinction. As I said in another thread, Lincoln did not create the sentiments that made the Proclamation so effective. He only recognized that they were sentiments he could make use of to drive a wedge a between the Confederacy and their prospective allies. And it was not like the Confederacy was going to give up the fight at that point anyway. He even provided that option, probably knowing that they wouldn't take it. So, I don't think it lengthened the war or made them anymore determined to fight than they already were. Death ground would have done both.

So the purpose of this exercise is to ignore what the Confederates felt about the election of a Republican being an extinction threat, and instead craft a narrative that ignores the previous 3 decades of servile insurrection hysteria?

 

[rbasin]

Thank you. Would also add, not going with Anaconda from the outset.

Which they ultimately did anyways.

 

[gary]

I mean, I've heard the Emancipation Proclamation was meant to keep the Europeans at bay. Any truth to this claim?

I think so. By the time of the ACW, slavery was banned in Western Europe and no nation could go to war in support of that peculiar institution.

 

[rbasin]

I think so. By the time of the ACW, slavery was banned in Western Europe and no nation could go to war in support of that peculiar institution.

The elites didn't mind it, but the average person did.

 

[damYankee]

So the purpose of this exercise is to ignore what the Confederates felt about the election of a Republican being an extinction threat, and instead craft a narrative that ignores the previous 3 decades of servile insurrection hysteria?

Where did the previous 3 decades of servile insurrection hysteria originate from?
There were no Republicans to blame, and the premise that all Southerners were of one mind is mythology.
The other side of the coin is the Northern and Western view, which was until the FSA pretty much neutral on the issue of slavery being allowed to continue in Southern states.
From 1800 till 1855 most federal laws concerning slavery tended to favor the South and protect the slave holders. It is true that as more states entered the Union as free states the Southerners had legitimate concerns but as long as the slave states remained in the Union they had enough representation in DC to block any laws that would have threatened their precious human property.

 

[JerryD]

He should have done so - but he probably never would have done so: I am pretty sure Lee always treaded extremely carefully.

His father had severely damaged the family reputation - hence Lee was disproportionally reluctant to expose himself - especially not with openly expressing dissent from his "peergroup"
- which would have been the Virginian tidewater "aristocrats".

This should also have been the reason for his kind of wiggly-waggly stance
in the days before resigning from "the old army".

I think a more likely reason is that historically the military is not supposed to be out front on political issues. They can hold their own beliefs, of course, but military leaders are not supposed to be political leaders. Lee may have felt a certain way, but he felt his military commission prohibited him from speaking out and trying to shape public opinion.

 

[leftyhunter]

Where did the previous 3 decades of servile insurrection hysteria originate from?
There were no Republicans to blame, and the premise that all Southerners were of one mind is mythology.
The other side of the coin is the Northern and Western view, which was until the FSA pretty much neutral on the issue of slavery being allowed to continue in Southern states.
From 1800 till 1855 most federal laws concerning slavery tended to favor the South and protect the slave holders. It is true that as more states entered the Union as free states the Southerners had legitimate concerns but as long as the slave states remained in the Union they had enough representation in DC to block any laws that would have threatened their precious human property.

To be fair to the American slave owners the French experience in what is now present day Hatti was legitimately frightening. There much smaller slave rebellions in the US with Nat Turmers Rebellion being the most famous or infamous depending one's viewpoint. There were also armed guerrilla bands of escaped slaves in Jamaica. Thomas Jefferson himself said of slavery " We are holding a wolf by the ears". Jefferson wasn't wrong.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

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.

Reminds me of a song

But it is bit odd if the two halves couldn't get along. Why not go seperate ways, rather then kill each other.

Really we are lucky how it ended, despite complaints of some on both sides, as there's civil wars that result in centuries of guerrilla/terrorist war and endless independence movement.

 

[Piedone]

I think a more likely reason is that historically the military is not supposed to be out front on political issues. They can hold their own beliefs, of course, but military leaders are not supposed to be political leaders. Lee may have felt a certain way, but he felt his military commission prohibited him from speaking out and trying to shape public opinion.

I guess that's right on the spot.
I am pretty sure he said something exactly along that line (but it will take time to find the quote)

 

[marktwainenjoyer]

But it is bit odd if the two halves couldn't get along. Why not go seperate ways, rather then kill each other.

Because it proved a point.

If the South can leave any time they're unhappy with the election results, then that sets a precedent that democracy can be broken anytime one party is miffed.

You have to remember that the modern idea of liberal democracy was only a lifetime old at the time, and had never been tried before the United States.

What the South did was the equivalent of flipping the table and storming out after the North played a royal flush.