Common Misconceptions/Myths

[Piedone]

They were kind of the key driver of the American economy. The cotton crop made up 60% of exports, plus a lot of it was used domestically in textile mills (mostly in the North); given that the country imported something like a third of their iron from British manufactories and felt they needed significant tariff walls to protect their manufacturing industry, it's cotton (i.e. a plantation crop) which is the American USP.

Absolutely. As much as I detest the idea of slavery it was (for a long time) probably the wealth that it produced that fueled the rapid rise of the United States.

 

[Piedone]

And this one's persistent enough that I think it's worth mentioning. The idea that McClellan was prone to retreat.


I will certainly concede that there are occasions when McClellan is static, and in fact that there are many of them - though I'd argue it's nothing unusual for any Civil War general in command of an army, since they were all static for significant periods of time. But what you will not find in McClellan's career is any significant number of retreats, in fact there's only one true retrograde movement each on the operational and strategic levels and the latter was one he actively argued against.

(If anyone's keeping score, the operational level retrograde movement is the Seven Days and the strategic level one is the pull back from Harrisons Landing to northern Virginia.)

You can get to a third if you consider the movement back to Washington post Second Bull Run to count.


The reason why I put it that way is that while tactical retreats (i.e. movements to the rear on a single battlefield) do happen more than that, it also starts to get a little silly because you can parse out a failed assault as a retreat. The retreats which matter to an amy commander are the ones on a wider scale than that.

I´d even say that those retreats were probably necessary and everything but unwise - as they offered chances to choose more promising advances elsewhere - when stubbornly beating one´s head against a wall in an unfavourable situation just produced losses without any positive gain.
And if Grant acted in 1864 more unyielding and never gave up his offensive advances it should be taken into account that the offensive capabilities of the ANV were much reduced at that point of time...

 

[Saphroneth]

And if Grant acted in 1864 more unyielding and never gave up his offensive advances it should be taken into account that the offensive capabilities of the ANV were much reduced at that point of time...

And, more to the point, the Federal army was much, much larger than it was in 1862.


The Lost Cause, to be clear, is a misconception in and of itself - but it should be realized clearly that the force ratio available in 1864 was greater than or equal to that at any other point in the war.

I could say that "It takes more than a 2:1 numerical advantage to fight your way over the Rapidan" and "Approaching Richmond without at least a 3:2 numerical advantage is a path to being defeated and repulsed" and "it takes at least a 3:2 numerical advantage and more than eight months of continuous pressure to be able to take Richmond or Petersburg" and none of these things is contradicted by the actual events of the war.

 

[archieclement]

I think the things to remember are:

- Not all slave enterprises were plantations. (There were also manufactories, for example, as well as large conventional farms.)
- Not all slaves worked in large slave enterprises. (Many of them worked on small farms - Grant's farm being one example - or in household duties etc.)
- Systems of coerced and unfree labour still exist and function today.

Here slavery coincided with Missouri's time as a frontier state. In a pioneer setting small scale slavery gave one huge advantages over non slaveholder settlers.

As not only did everything have to be built from ground up, houses, barns, fences, corn cribs, ect........but the land itself need cleared, trees cut, stumps and rocks removed to become fields.

Plus some like my GGGF could also diversify to run general stores, while his farm could more then compete with non slave holders. The who's who families of most counties were predominantly pre war slave holders.

They could make money from real estate as well, on frontiers virgin untouched land is cheap, improved clear land high, so they could always sell off portions of improved, to buy larger tracts of unimproved to always be improving. Having surplus labor just created an cycle of opportunity.

 

[CW Buff]

Jefferson Davis also relied upon "just cause" in addition to a "constitutionally sanctioned method of withdrawal" in his inaugural address when he said:
"our career as a Confederacy may not be obstructed by hostile opposition to our enjoyment of the separate existence and independence which we have asserted";
Our present condition, achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations, illustrates the American idea that governments rest upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established; and
"But, if this be denied to us, and the integrity of our territory and jurisdiction be assailed, it will but remain for us, with firm resolve, to appeal to arms and invoke the blessings of Providence on a just cause."

This actually feeds into exactly what I'm saying. There are two versions of "the right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established." One is the legal right, the sovereign power, of the people of a republic or other democracy. The people of such a nation are collectively sovereign, and if they have not specified a method by which a minority of the people may withdraw, then the only possible constitutional method is the amendment process.

The other version of the right to alter/abolish is the one the American colonists exercised, the moral right to revolution for just cause. This is a moral right to overthrow the established order, which is always illegal/revolutionary. But in order to be moral, the ultimate cause, the reason to seek independence, must be morally just.

This is why the Confederates presumed a constitutionally sanctioned method of withdrawal. All independent countries have the right to self defense. A claim that independence is an established fact certainly avoids the obvious moral conundrum involved with instituting the right to revolution for the sake of slavery.

"Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure." -- President Jackson's Proclamation on Nullification, December 10, 1832

If the Confederates had an actual just cause, they would have pursued revolution, like the American colonists did.

 

[Saphroneth]

If the Confederates had an actual just cause, they would have pursued revolution, like the American colonists did.

Would you be so kind as to clarify that? My understanding of the term "revolution" doesn't really match up with the events in the AWI, though I appreciate it's called the ARW.

 

[archieclement]

This actually feeds into exactly what I'm saying. There are two versions of "the right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established." One is the legal right, the sovereign power, of the people of a republic or other democracy. The people of such a nation are collectively sovereign, and if they have not specified a method by which a minority of the people may withdraw, then the only possible constitutional method is the amendment process.

The other version of the right to alter/abolish is the one the American colonists exercised, the moral right to revolution for just cause. This is a moral right to overthrow the established order, which is always illegal/revolutionary. But in order to be moral, the ultimate cause, the reason to seek independence, must be morally just.

This is why the Confederates presumed a constitutionally sanctioned method of withdrawal. All independent countries have the right to self defense. A claim that independence is an established fact certainly avoids the obvious moral conundrum involved with instituting the right to revolution for the sake of slavery.

"Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure." -- President Jackson's Proclamation on Nullification, December 10, 1832

If the Confederates had an actual just cause, they would have pursued revolution, like the American colonists did.

The problem there is most any group doing anything, considers themselves morally just.

Slavery for almost 100 yrs in the US was considered morally just, or it wouldn't have continued.........Manifest Destiny to rob and kill Native Americans was morally just, or they wouldn't have continued it.

 

[CW Buff]

Would you be so kind as to clarify that? My understanding of the term "revolution" doesn't really match up with the events in the AWI, though I appreciate it's called the ARW.

Could you, in turn, describe your understanding, and what it's based on.

There is Franklin's supposed statement upon signing the DoI: "We must all hang together, or ... we shall all hang separately." While anecdotal, it conveys the fact they were breaking the law.

However, most notably there is the DoI itself, which talks about invoking a moral right, not a legal/constitutional one.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

. . .

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;..."

Even though they felt Parliament and the king were violating the British Constitution, they did not presume they had a constitutional or legal right to separate from Britain, only a moral one.

 

[CW Buff]

The problem there is most any group doing anything, considers themselves morally just.

Slavery for almost 100 yrs in the US was considered morally just, or it wouldn't have continued.........Manifest Destiny to rob and kill Native Americans was morally just, or they wouldn't have continued it.

This isn't a matter of doing just anything, or continuing slavery, or exterminating Native Americans and stealing their land. This is a matter for which they appeal to others for legitimacy. In both cases, the two independence movements sought assistance.

In addition, WRT slavery, they did not consider it morally just, most of them considered it a necessary evil.

And unfortunately, Americans did not have to appeal to others for the correctness of their Native American policies, or any assistance in carrying it out.

 

[archieclement]

If one feels something needs done, it becomes morally excusable. That's simply reality.

Necessary evil is morally just if it's considered the lesser of two evils. Hence it being necessary..........

 

[Saphroneth]

Could you, in turn, describe your understanding, and what it's based on.

My understanding of a revolution is that it is an attempt to overthrow the government of the polity entirely and replace it with a new one, either through political means or through violent means.

The reason why I say that the AWI does not qualify in my understanding of a revolution is that there was no attempt (nor would it be rational for there to be) for the revolters in British North America to overthrow the government of the United Kingdom entirely; they were certainly trying to overthrow and replace the structure of their local government (and thus make one which was locally oriented rather than subservisent to the wider polity) but if you define it like that then any breakaway movement can be argued to be a revolution.

 

[GwilymT]

My understanding of a revolution is that it is an attempt to overthrow the government of the polity entirely and replace it with a new one, either through political means or through violent means.

The reason why I say that the AWI does not qualify in my understanding of a revolution is that there was no attempt (nor would it be rational for there to be) for the revolters in British North America to overthrow the government of the United Kingdom entirely; they were certainly trying to overthrow and replace the structure of their local government (and thus make one which was locally oriented rather than subservisent to the wider polity) but if you define it like that then any breakaway movement can be argued to be a revolution.

The standard definition is: a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favor of a new system.

Geographical constraints or whether there is a "break away" or not doesn't matter. The American Revolution was a revolution because both the government and the social order was overthrown in the colonies. That nothing changed in the UK is immaterial.

 

[Saphroneth]

The standard definition is: a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favor of a new system.

Geographical constraints or whether there is a "break away" or not doesn't matter. The American Revolution was a revolution because bothe the government and the social order was overthrown in the colonies. That nothing changed in the UK is immaterial.

The reason why that sounds strange to me is that it means that the American Civil War only doesn't qualify as a revolution in so far as the breakaway state was claiming to preserve the existing order of things, rather than overthrow them, but then that means that the genuinely transformative governmental overthrow of the Roman Principate wouldn't count either because it was a "Revolution from the right" rather than a "revolution from the left" - and revolutions from the right usually couch themselves as counter-revolutions, restoring some old system which should still apply but has been allowed to lapse.


If the Confederacy had succeeded, the result would be a new state with a different governmental system (similar to but not the same as the original US Constitution). Would that qualify as a revolution?

India broke away from the United Kingdom in a process which changed the existing government into a Republic, but the process was done with the approval of the British government and without a war of independence. Would that qualify as a revolution?

 

[GwilymT]

The reason why that sounds strange to me is that it means that the American Civil War only doesn't qualify as a revolution in so far as the breakaway state was claiming to preserve the existing order of things, rather than overthrow them, but then that means that the genuinely transformative governmental overthrow of the Roman Principate wouldn't count either because it was a "Revolution from the right" rather than a "revolution from the left" - and revolutions from the right usually couch themselves as counter-revolutions, restoring some old system which should still apply but has been allowed to lapse.


If the Confederacy had succeeded, the result would be a new state with a different governmental system (similar to but not the same as the original US Constitution). Would that qualify as a revolution?

India broke away from the United Kingdom in a process which changed the existing government into a Republic, but the process was done with the approval of the British government and without a war of independence. Would that qualify as a revolution?

Winning is important.. in order to be a revolution the changes in government/social order have to take place.

yes, the move from India to a republic would qualify as a revolution- though not violent (actually quite violent but not open war)- due to the actions of the Indian people the government and social order was overthrown.

The ACW can be classified as a revolution because the social order in a large part of the country was overthrown. Slavery ended.

As to the CSA, you are correct. Their actions were more reactionary (protecting the status quo against possible changes). The US was changing and they didn't want it to so they rebelled. Had they won, in my mind, it would have been more of a counter revolution than something fitting the standard definition of revolution.

 

[Saphroneth]

As to the CSA, you are correct. Their actions were more reactionary (protecting the status quo against possible changes). The US was changing and they didn't want it to so they rebelled. Had they won, in my mind, it would have been more of a counter revolution than something fitting the standard definition of revolution.

Though the tricky thing is how often genuine revolutions use the "counter" revolutionary framing. One example being the Meiji Restoration, which was framed as being a thorough counter-revolution (it's in the name) but the status quo being "restored" was one that never originally existed.

The ACW can be classified as a revolution because the social order in a large part of the country was overthrown. Slavery ended.

True, though effectively by accident. If the ACW had been won early then it may not have qualified as a revolution.


Would it count as a revolution if a breakaway state effectively continued with the existing government except it was no longer part of the top level? e.g. Australian independence (which was without violence) or a prospective future Scottish secession, or for that matter Belgian independence? Belgian independence is called a Belgian Revolution, though it seems as though when the dust settled the original social order was largely intact (they even had a new King) except insofar as Belgium was no longer part of the Netherlands.

 

[Piedone]

Many times I read about the Confederacy being an interest only for the rich planters that manipulated non-slave owning Southerners to join into the fray. And as soon as those poor devils understood how badly exploited they were to the advantage of a class of aristocrats "they deserted in droves". Now I did some reading and came upon that: https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/desertion,-cowardice-and-punishment.html
The desertion rates it tells in the North and the South were roughly the same,
And that albeit the Confederates suffered defeats and hardships which should have destroyed the morale of anybody who had not all his stakes in slavery.

Maybe there's another misconception lingering behind the corner? Maybe commoners in the South had after all more than just the often cited motives? I mean how long does this manipulation hold under such hardships, how long can you take part in such bloodshed if you just wanted to see the elephant or to impress some girls back home? And desertion was seemingly not that difficult to do...

I just can't make heads nor tails of it (seems to be my outcome all the time...).

Of course many dreaded a future in the South with 4 million african Americans freed (but this wouldn't apply equally to all members of a diverse society,
Hence I'd suppose that also a deep felt southern patriotism had evolved fueled by a resentment of the Yankees. Of course this leads back to slavery (that produced that resentment).

But this would also tell that not everybody in the South fought just for upkeeping slavery.

Alright, putting my helmet on and get me some cover....

 

[Saphroneth]

Well, firstly there's that slavery was more of a middle class thing than an upper class one, so it's quite reasonable that people might fight for the right to some day own slaves.

Secondly, there was a genuine feeling that the South was a reasonable unit which had distinct values from the North. Certainly people overseas noticed the distinction!


But as for why people fought... in any army in history, people have fought for all sorts of reasons.
There's patriotism, pride, honour (Internal, as in, "I am doing this because I feel it is right"; horizontal, as in, "This is what my peers respect", and vertical, as in, "Fighting and doing great things is how I will rise in society's esteem"). There's fear over what the results could be of loss, and a wish for what victory could bring.
There's fighting for pay. There's fighting because the enemy is trying to kill you and how dare they!
There's all kinds of emotional reasons, all tangled up together, because - like a lot of things which are ultimately based on emotion - they don't follow neat lines.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Many times I read about the Confederacy being an interest only for the rich planters that manipulated non-slave owning Southerners to join into the fray. And as soon as those poor devils understood how badly exploited they were to the advantage of a class of aristocrats "they deserted in droves".

Just about 1/3 of all households in the south owned slaves. So owning slaves was fare from only a upper-class thing.

 

[CanadianCanuck]

Just about 1/3 of all households in the south owned slaves. So owning slaves was fare from only a upper-class thing.

If I recall correctly wasn't it more like 25% owned or rented slaves? Slave owners made money from renting out slaves as well so it wasn't uncommon for people who couldn't afford to buy one to rent one for periods of time. There were only 393,000 slave owning families across all the slave states and 76,000 in the border states.

I'm not great at math so maybe it does go up to 1/3rd if you take out the border states.

 

[Quaama]

Many times I read about the Confederacy being an interest only for the rich planters that manipulated non-slave owning Southerners to join into the fray. And as soon as those poor devils understood how badly exploited they were to the advantage of a class of aristocrats "they deserted in droves". Now I did some reading and came upon that: https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/desertion,-cowardice-and-punishment.html
The desertion rates it tells in the North and the South were roughly the same,
And that albeit the Confederates suffered defeats and hardships which should have destroyed the morale of anybody who had not all his stakes in slavery.

Maybe there's another misconception lingering behind the corner? Maybe commoners in the South had after all more than just the often cited motives? I mean how long does this manipulation hold under such hardships, how long can you take part in such bloodshed if you just wanted to see the elephant or to impress some girls back home? And desertion was seemingly not that difficult to do...

I just can't make heads nor tails of it (seems to be my outcome all the time...).

Of course many dreaded a future in the South with 4 million african Americans freed (but this wouldn't apply equally to all members of a diverse society,
Hence I'd suppose that also a deep felt southern patriotism had evolved fueled by a resentment of the Yankees. Of course this leads back to slavery (that produced that resentment).

But this would also tell that not everybody in the South fought just for upkeeping slavery.

Alright, putting my helmet on and get me some cover....

I suppose you "can't make heads nor tails of it" because that simply wasn't the motive.

The most likely motive was probably best summed up [in the quotes from Foote's The Civil War] when Union Soldiers captured a Confederate and asked him "What are you fighting for, anyhow?" The Confederate replied: "I'm fighting because you're down here." Foote regarded that as "a pretty satisfactory answer".
Underlying that is the notion that they were fighting for their State and the Confederate nation.

There is nothing to support a claim that they "dreaded a future in the South with 4 million african Americans freed" because Lincoln had said in his inaugural speech that he had "...no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Such a thing was not even a possibility until the emancipation proclamation was made and the war was well under way by that stage. That proclamation had no real high moral purpose as it only applied to those in rebellion rather than slavery being seen as inherently immoral.