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

 

[archieclement]

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.

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

But then same point is why some would say reconstruction failed.

If restoring democracy one has to then restore self rule to the states. Why I think north belatedly realized they blundered with reconstruction. As pushing civil rights went against the majority in states having self rule restored. Because the majority wasn't going to enforce it.

Certainly at the time there was no strong federal law enforcement as FSL failures had demonstrated, and martial law wasn't sustainable if actually restoring democracy and self rule to states.

14th and 15th amendments wasnt going to ensure equal treatment by white law enforcement and courts and juries in the north, much less the south. Rather polly annish to think otherwise considering era attitudes. If extending blunder to include reconstruction.

Certainly one can say it was good intent, they at least tried......but such a statement acknowledges it fell short.....and fell short because lack of popular support at time.

 

[JerryD]

But then same point is why some would say reconstruction failed.

If restoring democracy one has to then restore self rule to the states. Why I think north belatedly realized they blundered with reconstruction. As pushing civil rights went against the majority in states having self rule restored. Because the majority wasn't going to enforce it.

Certainly at the time there was no strong federal law enforcement as FSL failures had demonstrated, and martial law wasn't sustainable if actually restoring democracy and self rule to states.

14th and 15th amendments wasnt going to ensure equal treatment by white law enforcement and courts and juries in the north, much less the south. Rather polly annish to think otherwise considering era attitudes. If extending blunder to include reconstruction.

Certainly one can say it was good intent, they at least tried......but such a statement acknowledges it fell short.....and fell short because lack of popular support at time.

Yes, certainly one solution is to let the bad guys win. Like it or not, the 14th and 15th Amendments were the law of the land. Failure of Reconstruction was the failure to insist on their enforcement. As you note, popular support, in the face of such virulent hatred and prejudice, was not prepared for the long term effort. On my tours of the Smithsonian I note this failure as one of the saddest moments in our history.

 

[archieclement]

Yes, certainly one solution is to let the bad guys win. Like it or not, the 14th and 15th Amendments were the law of the land. Failure of Reconstruction was the failure to insist on their enforcement. As you note, popular support, in the face of such virulent hatred and prejudice, was not prepared for the long term effort. On my tours of the Smithsonian I note this failure as one of the saddest moments in our history.

So was the FSL, prohibition, and a host of current federal laws ignored. We have a rather extensive history of not enforcing federal laws, particularly where and when there's little support. People even still complain about enforcement.

But then that's the catch of a duel system government, effective enforcement usually requires local and state authorities, courts and juries to be on board with the federal laws. Otherwise little arrests and enforcement, prosecutions or convictions.......

The secret of our sucess seems in allowing dissent to federal laws, rather then rigidly cracking down on states/counties/municipalities defying them. Civil disobedience to federal law is even often celebrated by some. It's rather unique through our history compared to many other nations who would insist on rigid federal supremacy.

 

[atlantis]

Post EP we see some of the bloodiest combat
Suggesting it was the biggest union error.

 

[fyrd]

Highly doubtful that the rest of the war would not have been as bloody absent the Emancipation Proclamation. The EP only comes after First Manassas, Shiloh, Second Manassas, Antietam, and Fredericksburg. There's not much to suggest that punches were pulled merely because the EP hadn't been issued yet.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Highly doubtful that the rest of the war would not have been as bloody absent the Emancipation Proclamation. The EP only comes after First Manassas, Shiloh, Second Manassas, Antietam, and Fredericksburg. There's not much to suggest that punches were pulled merely because the EP hadn't been issued yet.

And some of those were very recent confederate victories. Plus Perryville. Stones River. The opinion that confederate morale was flagging late 62/early 63 and that the EP reinvigorated them doesn't seem to be rooted in any series of historical events that I'm aware of.

 

[JerryD]

So was the FSL, prohibition, and a host of current federal laws ignored. We have a rather extensive history of not enforcing federal laws, particularly where and when there's little support. People even still complain about enforcement.

But then that's the catch of a duel system government, effective enforcement usually requires local and state authorities, courts and juries to be on board with the federal laws. Otherwise little arrests and enforcement, prosecutions or convictions.......

The secret of our sucess seems in allowing dissent to federal laws, rather then rigidly cracking down on states/counties/municipalities defying them. Civil disobedience to federal law is even often celebrated by some. It's rather unique through our history compared to many other nations who would insist on rigid federal supremacy.

We will need to disagree about whether the FSL was enforced. We know it was becuase of all the unrest it caused up north when freed people were being kidnapped and stolen into slavery by slave catchers. But yes, your point is valid in that there was local opposition to it.

At the risk of being accused of moralizing, the difference between the opposition to the FSL and the Civil War amendments is simply one of morality. Opposition to the FSL was based on promoting freedom, while opposition to the Civil War Amendments was based on opposing freedom. Opposition to unjust laws is a proud American tradition, as you state. Opposition to civil rights laws, sadly, is also an American tradition, but I don't think anyone would claim its a proud one.

 

[archieclement]

We will need to disagree about whether the FSL was enforced. We know it was becuase of all the unrest it caused up north when freed people were being kidnapped and stolen into slavery by slave catchers. But yes, your point is valid in that there was local opposition to it.

At the risk of being accused of moralizing, the difference between the opposition to the FSL and the Civil War amendments is simply one of morality. Opposition to the FSL was based on promoting freedom, while opposition to the Civil War Amendments was based on opposing freedom. Opposition to unjust laws is a proud American tradition, as you state. Opposition to civil rights laws, sadly, is also an American tradition, but I don't think anyone would claim its a proud one.

There is no difference in morality actually. As your "justness" is indeed decided by the people. Morality and certainly "justness" is set by majority in democracy. Why laws majority see "unjust" are seldom enforced or prosecuted, or results in conviction or substantial sentence if they disagree.


Thats the problem with anyone who supports or celebrates civil disobedience to laws. If you agree with a cause great......but you better be then prepared for people who you may disagree with to also disobey the law.

I would think your burying your head in the sand with the last statement, as think it's rather obvious in the past people were indeed proud of their actions. Look at photos of riots executions ect. That we don't agree, doesn't at all change what they did or what they beleived.

That you say we have a long tradition of opposition to civil rights only would occur if significant numbers found it warranted. Certainly in 1800's the significant numbers were likely majority in most areas. That history isn't always pleasant, is no reason to ignore historical reality. Most of history is actually noting things, events, people, beliefs we likely don't identify with, certainly unlikely to identify with both sides of issues, why one has to be rather impartial.

 

[tony_gunter]

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.

I see the disconnect. You can't see that Republican rule excited fears of slave rebellion and general societal collapse?

"The ruin of the South, by the emancipation of her slaves, is not like the ruin of any other people. It is not a mere loss of liberty, like the Italians under the BOURBONS. It is not heavy taxation, which must still leave the means of living, or otherwise taxation defeats itself. But it is the loss of liberty, property, home, country-- everything that makes life worth living. And this loss, will probably take place under circumstances of suffering and horror, unsurpassed in the history of nations. We must preserve our liberties and institutions, under penalties greater than those which impend over any people in the world."

 

[archieclement]

I see the disconnect. You can't see that Republican rule excited fears of slave rebellion and general societal collapse?

"The ruin of the South, by the emancipation of her slaves, is not like the ruin of any other people. It is not a mere loss of liberty, like the Italians under the BOURBONS. It is not heavy taxation, which must still leave the means of living, or otherwise taxation defeats itself. But it is the loss of liberty, property, home, country-- everything that makes life worth living. And this loss, will probably take place under circumstances of suffering and horror, unsurpassed in the history of nations. We must preserve our liberties and institutions, under penalties greater than those which impend over any people in the world."

Indeed i never realized this to reading a book on Kansas. But both sides saw slavery as issue of liberty. As long as something is legal, your right to practice it, is indeed an issue of liberty and freedom.

One can see a host of issues today, some more controversial then others, but will have hard-core defenders of whatever the issue as it's legal, and then the freedom to practice it. It was no different then.

Edit added- the book was Bleeding Kansas, Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era.
One of best books I've read on subject, as explains both sides views.

 

[atlantis]

The fears of the slave owning elite have to be taken into consideration because whether those fears are justified or not the elite are the ones molding public opinion, making decisions. So, we see earlier with enlistment flagging conscription is pushed thru even though it is unpopular which brings us to Sept. Perryville, Sharpsburg are setbacks the AoT returns to Tennessee in a state of disorganization and the ANV has suffered heavy losses, something threatening would be needed to keep men from saying to hell with it. The EP can be presented to the soldiers as a threat to everything they hold dear, remember the EP is proclaimed in Sept but doesn't take effect until 1Jan plenty of time to mold opinion that continuing the fight is necessary. Not until November 64 just months from collapse when public debate over conscripting negroes into the confederate army starts do we see a loss of trust in the elite explanation of why it is necessary to keep fighting.

 

[leftyhunter]

The fears of the slave owning elite have to be taken into consideration because whether those fears are justified or not the elite are the ones molding public opinion, making decisions. So, we see earlier with enlistment flagging conscription is pushed thru even though it is unpopular which brings us to Sept. Perryville, Sharpsburg are setbacks the AoT returns to Tennessee in a state of disorganization and the ANV has suffered heavy losses, something threatening would be needed to keep men from saying to hell with it. The EP can be presented to the soldiers as a threat to everything they hold dear, remember the EP is proclaimed in Sept but doesn't take effect until 1Jan plenty of time to mold opinion that continuing the fight is necessary. Not until November 64 just months from collapse when public debate over conscripting negroes into the confederate army starts do we see a loss of trust in the elite explanation of why it is necessary to keep fighting.

Yet Confederate desertion was far more common post EP then pre EP.
Leftyhunter

 

[damYankee]

I see the disconnect. You can't see that Republican rule excited fears of slave rebellion and general societal collapse?

"The ruin of the South, by the emancipation of her slaves, is not like the ruin of any other people. It is not a mere loss of liberty, like the Italians under the BOURBONS. It is not heavy taxation, which must still leave the means of living, or otherwise taxation defeats itself. But it is the loss of liberty, property, home, country-- everything that makes life worth living. And this loss, will probably take place under circumstances of suffering and horror, unsurpassed in the history of nations. We must preserve our liberties and institutions, under penalties greater than those which impend over any people in the world."

You left out the Illuminatii, the Rothschilds and the Holy Roman Empire, and the Boogie Man.

 

[damYankee]

The fears of the slave owning elite have to be taken into consideration because whether those fears are justified or not the elite are the ones molding public opinion, making decisions. So, we see earlier with enlistment flagging conscription is pushed thru even though it is unpopular which brings us to Sept. Perryville, Sharpsburg are setbacks the AoT returns to Tennessee in a state of disorganization and the ANV has suffered heavy losses, something threatening would be needed to keep men from saying to hell with it. The EP can be presented to the soldiers as a threat to everything they hold dear, remember the EP is proclaimed in Sept but doesn't take effect until 1Jan plenty of time to mold opinion that continuing the fight is necessary. Not until November 64 just months from collapse when public debate over conscripting negroes into the confederate army starts do we see a loss of trust in the elite explanation of why it is necessary to keep fighting.

Those fears pre-dated the American Revolution and were used by politicians and fear mongers for at least as long as the African slave trade existed.
When the freedom of others becomes your greatest fear that says more about you than it does about "the others."

 

[Desert Kid]

I have yet to read a single diary or memoir that expressed the opinion you state that the EP boosted southern morale or confirmed fears they would have to compete with slaves for jobs. In fact, its kind of ludicrous to think any would think so.

In fact, we know the EP was perhaps Lincoln's smartest move. It effectively put an end to any consideration by Great Britain or France to recognize the CSA and it ultimately put the war on a higher moral plane. While there was some pushback from the north, the effect on barring European recognition of the CSA and in giving the war a higher cause far exceeded any conflict with draft dodgers or others opposed to the measure.

Which means the CSA after that point had one option, peace through exhaustion.

What plays into that is the Red River Campaign, and that set the Union grand strategy back a solid year. It really can't be understated how Forrest's actions in North Mississippi/Alabama, Richard Taylor in Louisiana and Lee's trench warfare in Virginia was underhanded by the Army of Tennessee's failures after Chickamauga and Johnston letting Sherman even remotely close to Atlanta.

 

[atlantis]

Those fears pre-dated the American Revolution and were used by politicians and fear mongers for at least as long as the African slave trade existed.
When the freedom of others becomes your greatest fear that says more about you than it does about "the others."

I am not saying their fear was justify I am saying it existed and therefore lead to certain decisions, mainly to keep fighting. The press played a shameful role in amplifying fear as did politicians and clergy. Sadly, the statement by Hermann Goering about how easy it is to convince people to go to war still remains true. What a shock it must have been to hear let's conscript slaves when just before leaders were claiming the next Santo Domingo was just around the corner.

 

[leftyhunter]

Which means the CSA after that point had one option, peace through exhaustion.

What plays into that is the Red River Campaign, and that set the Union grand strategy back a solid year. It really can't be understated how Forrest's actions in North Mississippi/Alabama, Richard Taylor in Louisiana and Lee's trench warfare in Virginia was underhanded by the Army of Tennessee's failures after Chickamauga and Johnston letting Sherman even remotely close to Atlanta.

To be fair there were essentially few Confederate forces available to counter Sherman. General Wheeler only had 5k cavalry vs essentially useless Georgia State Milita. General Johnston had least tried to block the AoC in Georgia vs General Hood took the AoT into Tennessee to be slaughtered. General Grant by the summer if 1864 had the AnV pinned down at Petersburg. Yes the Union Army had setbacks but victory for the Union was invetiable.
Leftyhunter

 

[Desert Kid]

To be fair there were essentially few Confederate forces available to counter Sherman. General Wheeler only had 5k cavalry vs essentially useless Georgia State Milita. General Johnston had least tried to block the AoC in Georgia vs General Hood took the AoT into Tennessee to be slaughtered. General Grant by the summer if 1864 had the AnV pinned down at Petersburg. Yes the Union Army had setbacks but victory for the Union was invetiable.
Leftyhunter

I just think that preventing Atlanta from being captured was the last ditch effort they could have hoped for.

 

[leftyhunter]

I just think that preventing Atlanta from being captured was the last ditch effort they could have hoped for.

I would argue that breaking the naval blockade was more important because if cotton can't be exported to Western Europe whats the point in owning slaves? Once the AnV is pinned down and slowly starved to death there is no hope for a Confederate victory or even a negotiated peace. Even if Atlanta held the Union Army could maneuver around it and devastate the agriculture in Georgia and the Carolinas that feed the AnV.
Leftyhunter

 

[JerryD]

Another opportunity to agree to disagree. Every law is not moral just because it was decided by a majority. That is pretty self evident. And sorry, its ludicrous to claim opposition to slavery is morally the same as supporting slavery, or in your opinion, since slavery was legal, support for slavery was morally superior to opposition. You can take that position if you want, but I think its clear you will be in a very, very small minority.

There is no difference in morality actually. As your "justness" is indeed decided by the people. Morality and certainly "justness" is set by majority in democracy. Why laws majority see "unjust" are seldom enforced or prosecuted, or results in conviction or substantial sentence if they disagree.


Thats the problem with anyone who supports or celebrates civil disobedience to laws. If you agree with a cause great......but you better be then prepared for people who you may disagree with to also disobey the law.

I would think your burying your head in the sand with the last statement, as think it's rather obvious in the past people were indeed proud of their actions. Look at photos of riots executions ect. That we don't agree, doesn't at all change what they did or what they beleived.

That you say we have a long tradition of opposition to civil rights only would occur if significant numbers found it warranted. Certainly in 1800's the significant numbers were likely majority in most areas. That history isn't always pleasant, is no reason to ignore historical reality. Most of history is actually noting things, events, people, beliefs we likely don't identify with, certainly unlikely to identify with both sides of issues, why one has to be rather impartial.