Confederate War Aims

[LetUsHavePeace]

I have a question for you all that is both general and specific. Why did the Confederate States of America never focus directly on the source of all its troubles - Washington, D.C.? To be more specific, why does it seem that Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee never once defined their goal as the capture of the enemy's Capitol? That may seem absurd as a question; but I find nothing in Confederate discussions that matches the intensity of the call of "On to Richmond". From Day One the politicians on the Union side are focused on capturing the Confederate capitol and obsessed with protecting Washington. Why, with its wonderful ability to fight and move and fight again, did the Army of Northern Virginia never direct its campaigns against the nation's political and military headquarters?
Ethan Rafuse ends his recent book on Lee and the Confederacy by pointing out that smaller armies and poorer nations have defeated larger and wealthier ones. Rafuse mentions the success of Prussia against France as a specific example. The thesis of his book is that Lee had the advantage of mobility yet somehow was unable to use it successfully. If one has to criticize Lee as a commander, it makes far more sense to ask why he and Davis never assumed that their best strategy was to go for Washington as the Prussians went for Paris. A campaign plan that crossed the Potomac at Point of Rocks or White's Ferry and then cut the rail lines from Baltimore would have besieged Washington without having to attack its fortifications. Colonel Jackson's success at Harper's Ferry in May, 1861 offered a possible model.
I raise this question as someone who has the confidence of ignorance. My studies of the civil war have focused entirely on finance - how both sides paid for what they used, not on the battles or campaigns. What brought this question to mind was reading about how completely Buchanan, Stanton and Chase favored the Pennsylvania Railroad over the Baltimore & Ohio in subsidies and contracts before and during the war.

 

[jackt62]

The broad answer to your question is that the Confederacy's goal was to protect and defend the territory that was already in its possession. While the Confederacy never settled on a consistent strategy, some sort of defensive posture was most applicable to attaining its goal of independence. In contrast, the Union had the more difficult job of actively vanquishing rebel armies by "invading" the southland in order to suppress the rebellion. That being said, Lee promoted the concept of an "offensive-defense" in which aggressive moves that included incursions to northern states were his means of diminishing the will of the northern people to fight on, and perhaps of even attaining some sort of recognition by European governments. In that sense, the capture of Washington City, as you hypothesize, may have made sense. Lincoln and his administration certainly feared such an outcome and spent much of the war diverting resources to the capitol's defense. But in reality, Lee's ANV or the Confederacy at large, lacked sufficient resources, and secure lines of communication to have ever pulled it off. Lee's Pennsylvania incursion in 1863, which aimed at the more limited target of Harrisburg, was soundly repelled, as was Jubal Early's forlorn attempt to seize Washington in 1864.

 

[Trevfo]

I am of the opinion that the Confederacy wanted to separate from, not necessarily, overthrow the U. S. government. Sure they would have concentrated on D. C. more if they felt this would help their goal of independence from the U.S. government, not destroying it. I feel that Lincoln felt that he had to hold the union together and never considered anything else. That is why the Confederacy fought a more defensive war to protect what was theirs instead of taking over what was not. Gettysburg was an attempt to get the Federal government to the negotiating table. Just my 2 cents.

 

[jackt62]

There is no evidence to suggest that the Confederacy ever wanted to "overthrow the US government," if by that we mean that the seceded states wished to (with the exception of Kentucky and Missouri) bring additional northern states into the Confederate fold. Of course, the legally elected government of the United States considered secession to be an act of rebellion, a term that some may link together with "overthrowing" the government. But the Confederacy had enough on its hands to simply keep its own territory intact.

 

[PapaReb]

The Confederacy was fighting a war of independence and defense. The Union was fighting a war of conquest and retention. The CSA had no desire to overthrow or subdue the United States, their goal was to simply separate themselves and establish their own nation.

"On to Richmond" pretty much sums up the Union's goal, destruction of the Confederate States of America as an independent nation.

JMHO others mileage may vary.

 

[NedBaldwin]

There is no evidence to suggest that the Confederacy ever wanted to "overthrow the US government," if by that we mean that the seceded states wished to (with the exception of Kentucky and Missouri) bring additional northern states into the Confederate fold. Of course, the legally elected government of the United States considered secession to be an act of rebellion, a term that some may link together with "overthrowing" the government. But the Confederacy had enough on its hands to simply keep its own territory intact.

The Confederacy official declared that its goal for any resolution of the war was to include Maryland in the CSA (as well as Kentucky, Missouri and Arizona). This would put DC in CSA territory.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Davis (and others like LP Walker) wanted to move "On To Washington" in early 1861, but the army wasn't organized for it or able and the opportunity passed.

In early 1862 Confederate government defined its goal as including DC and Maryland in the CSA

Confederate forces moved into western Maryland in fall 62, summer 63 and summer 64 each time trying to turn DC but each time failing as US forces moved to block.

I have a question for you all that is both general and specific. Why did the Confederate States of America never focus directly on the source of all its troubles - Washington, D.C.? To be more specific, why does it seem that Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee never once defined their goal as the capture of the enemy's Capitol? That may seem absurd as a question; but I find nothing in Confederate discussions that matches the intensity of the call of "On to Richmond". From Day One the politicians on the Union side are focused on capturing the Confederate capitol and obsessed with protecting Washington. Why, with its wonderful ability to fight and move and fight again, did the Army of Northern Virginia never direct its campaigns against the nation's political and military headquarters?
Ethan Rafuse ends his recent book on Lee and the Confederacy by pointing out that smaller armies and poorer nations have defeated larger and wealthier ones. Rafuse mentions the success of Prussia against France as a specific example. The thesis of his book is that Lee had the advantage of mobility yet somehow was unable to use it successfully. If one has to criticize Lee as a commander, it makes far more sense to ask why he and Davis never assumed that their best strategy was to go for Washington as the Prussians went for Paris. A campaign plan that crossed the Potomac at Point of Rocks or White's Ferry and then cut the rail lines from Baltimore would have besieged Washington without having to attack its fortifications. Colonel Jackson's success at Harper's Ferry in May, 1861 offered a possible model.
I raise this question as someone who has the confidence of ignorance. My studies of the civil war have focused entirely on finance - how both sides paid for what they used, not on the battles or campaigns. What brought this question to mind was reading about how completely Buchanan, Stanton and Chase favored the Pennsylvania Railroad over the Baltimore & Ohio in subsidies and contracts before and during the war.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Confederate strategy was expansive -- Confederate forces invaded Missouri, Kentucy, Maryland and Arizona in efforts to expand their territory. But the US put an emphasis on defending DC and always ketp a large covering force. In 1861 confederates werent organized enough to make a go at it before US had built up forces around DC. After the success of 2nd Bull Run, Lee invaded Maryland in September 1862 but McClellan successfully moved his army to block and Lee had to concentrate and secure his supply line by capturing Harpers Ferry. While Harpers Ferry was captured and he was able to pull his army together to fight, Lee found that in 1862 the ANV lacked the organization and logistics to maintain an effort north of the Potomac and had to retreat and regroup. In 1863 he tried again, going on wide arc west then north, cutting of DC and Baltimore from the west and north but Hooker/Meade had moved so successfully to block him that he could not move down to cut them off from the east. A year later Early would try, coming across the from the Valley and moving direct on DC but was blocked in the nick of time. So seems to me that the CSA made the effort to get DC but just couldnt

 

[A. Roy]

Isn't it true, also, that as the war progressed the advantage of fortifications became increasingly better appreciated? All the while, the defenses of Washington become increasingly formidable. Armies learned that fortifications allowed an inferior force to better hold off a superior force, especially where the defender had effective interior lines. Defenses could be overcome by superior forces, but at a cost. So while Washington might have been tempting as a target, the defenses were enough of a deterrent to make that a less likely strategy.

Roy B.

 

[John S. Carter]

I have a question for you all that is both general and specific. Why did the Confederate States of America never focus directly on the source of all its troubles - Washington, D.C.? To be more specific, why does it seem that Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee never once defined their goal as the capture of the enemy's Capitol? That may seem absurd as a question; but I find nothing in Confederate discussions that matches the intensity of the call of "On to Richmond". From Day One the politicians on the Union side are focused on capturing the Confederate capitol and obsessed with protecting Washington. Why, with its wonderful ability to fight and move and fight again, did the Army of Northern Virginia never direct its campaigns against the nation's political and military headquarters?
Ethan Rafuse ends his recent book on Lee and the Confederacy by pointing out that smaller armies and poorer nations have defeated larger and wealthier ones. Rafuse mentions the success of Prussia against France as a specific example. The thesis of his book is that Lee had the advantage of mobility yet somehow was unable to use it successfully. If one has to criticize Lee as a commander, it makes far more sense to ask why he and Davis never assumed that their best strategy was to go for Washington as the Prussians went for Paris. A campaign plan that crossed the Potomac at Point of Rocks or White's Ferry and then cut the rail lines from Baltimore would have besieged Washington without having to attack its fortifications. Colonel Jackson's success at Harper's Ferry in May, 1861 offered a possible model.
I raise this question as someone who has the confidence of ignorance. My studies of the civil war have focused entirely on finance - how both sides paid for what they used, not on the battles or campaigns. What brought this question to mind was reading about how completely Buchanan, Stanton and Chase favored the Pennsylvania Railroad over the Baltimore & Ohio in subsidies and contracts before and during the war.

Jubal Early came with in striking distance of Washington but was stopped, not that he had enough forces as Lee had with his adventure into Yankee country to have marched into the capital. Were would Lee had moved it he had defeated Meade ,what stood between him and the capital ? What would have been accomplished if he took Washington as with the British after they took the capital ,the war continued and the government moved to a new location and even in the Revolution the government moved several times, Then after Grant took Richmond both the army and government loaded the wagons .Napoleon sent time enjoying the winter in Moscow. The capture of a capital may mean more to the citizens of the capturer than to the captured, unless the government is taken with the city .As to "On to Richmond" it was a good motivational slogan for the people like "Remember the Alamo" for Texans, and 'Remember the Maine" as for the short war of 1898.Does anyone know what the war slogan was for the Confederate people? It was not "On to Washington". It is interesting that after Manassas, Bull Run for my Yankee readers, that Beauregard could have moved onto Washington but choose to remain where he was. The Confederacy did not want the war and this may be a indication of this>opinions are welcome. I know ,Ft. Sumter. Guest sometimes have to be encouraged to depart .It provided Lincoln a good war slogan "Remember Ft. Sumter" that was kin to later that of "John Brown's Body" and that even became a spiritual ballad. Yanks do know how to turn a good war slogan.

 

[LondonLincoln]

Jubal Early came with in striking distance of Washington but was stopped, not that he had enough forces as Lee had with his adventure into Yankee country to have marched into the capital. Were would Lee had moved it he had defeated Meade ,what stood between him and the capital ? What would have been accomplished if he took Washington as with the British after they took the capital ,the war continued and the government moved to a new location and even in the Revolution the government moved several times, Then after Grant took Richmond both the army and government loaded the wagons .Napoleon sent time enjoying the winter in Moscow. The capture of a capital may mean more to the citizens of the capturer than to the captured, unless the government is taken with the city .As to "On to Richmond" it was a good motivational slogan for the people like "Remember the Alamo" for Texans, and 'Remember the Maine" as for the short war of 1898.Does anyone know what the war slogan was for the Confederate people? It was not "On to Washington". It is interesting that after Manassas, Bull Run for my Yankee readers, that Beauregard could have moved onto Washington but choose to remain where he was. The Confederacy did not want the war and this may be a indication of this>opinions are welcome. I know ,Ft. Sumter. Guest sometimes have to be encouraged to depart .It provided Lincoln a good war slogan "Remember Ft. Sumter" that was kin to later that of "John Brown's Body" and that even became a spiritual ballad. Yanks do know how to turn a good war slogan.

So would a confederate war slogan of had any real positive effect on the people /troops ?

 

[John S. Carter]

So would a confederate war slogan of had any real positive effect on the people /troops ?

It seems as though thru out history that slogans have had their effect upon the populations. Then why would it not have effect emotionally upon the people of the South?

 

[jackt62]

It seems as though thru out history that slogans have had their effect upon the populations. Then why would it not have effect emotionally upon the people of the South?

Slogans may serve to strengthen morale but I doubt whether they are significant to an actual outcome. The bombardment of Ft. Sumter was the event that served to arouse northern passions to protect the Union and put down the rebellious southern states. That passion was expressed in the term "On to Richmond," but the slogan was simply a byproduct of the emotional appeal that had already been raised.

 

[jackt62]

The South may not have developed a unique slogan to excite its population because it lacked clear war aims that could readily appeal to its own population. The slow moving months during which states seceded may have initially satisfied the anger about the election of Abe Lincoln. But once secession had been achieved, the Confederacy was faced with the problem of developing and fostering a unique nationalism, a tall order considering that secession itself was triggered by a smaller, but influential segment consisting of the planter class and their allies. My guess is that most southerners just wanted to get on with their daily lives and routines, and were not interested in embarking on an armed struggle. Yes, there was another surge of enthusiasm for southern rights after Lincoln's call for volunteers to end the rebellion but this reaction was prompted by a sense that southern homes and hearths needed to be defended from northern "invaders." Thus, there was no call for "On to Washington" or something similar.

 

[John S. Carter]

The South may not have developed a unique slogan to excite its population because it lacked clear war aims that could readily appeal to its own population. The slow moving months during which states seceded may have initially satisfied the anger about the election of Abe Lincoln. But once secession had been achieved, the Confederacy was faced with the problem of developing and fostering a unique nationalism, a tall order considering that secession itself was triggered by a smaller, but influential segment consisting of the planter class and their allies. My guess is that most southerners just wanted to get on with their daily lives and routines, and were not interested in embarking on an armed struggle. Yes, there was another surge of enthusiasm for southern rights after Lincoln's call for volunteers to end the rebellion but this reaction was prompted by a sense that southern homes and hearths needed to be defended from northern "invaders." Thus, there was no call for "On to Washington" or something similar.

May I say that I agree with this esp. the latter section of the defense of homes. I do not believe that the common people of the South had any other aim for themselves but in defense of the home front and their own personal way of life. As to war aims ,the only ones who may have had those where the political sections of the South ,those who lead the South into this conflict and those who for generations were fearful of losing what they had ,not just the slave system but the social system which they controlled. by press, censorship, religion and threats of Northern aggression into the South which would destroy their way of life. History proves that this is not just in this time but thru out man's relationship with each other. May one suggest that for insight into this ,the history of the Peloponnesian war is worth reading . BOOK=Donald Kagan - THE Peloponnesian War=easy title to remember. Take time in reading this book other wise you may overlook the real lessons that serve what is happening then and now, how people act and react to certain events as they did and do. Political leaders have not changed in message or tactics as with both North and South.

 

[OpnCoronet]

I think Davis said that All the confederacy wanted was to be left alone to live under their own govt and enjoy their peculiar and unique way of life as they saw fit, that it had no ambitions outside their own borders, but to enjoy peaceful relations and trade with all the world who would. I would not argue that this was not accurate enough of their intent.

Unfortunately the confederacys intended goal, required its rending apart the fabric or an already existing Nation, of which the South was an integral part, without its consent, to accomplish.

 

[Sovereign States]

Confederates simply wanted political independence, just as the secessionists of 1776 did. That was it. Had they been left undisturbed, no war would have occurred.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Confederates simply wanted political independence, just as the secessionists of 1776 did. That was it. Had they been left undisturbed, no war would have occurred.

The Confederate government declared its goal was to expand to include States that has not yet joined it, so it was impossible for them to be left undisturbed. They wanted war

 

[Sovereign States]

The United States government explicitly declared their intention to deliberately violate the territorial integrity of the Confederate States. Accordingly, it was impossible for the CSA not to defend themselves. The United States desperately wanted war.

 

[Florida Rebel]

I too believe the southern states, most of it's politicians and especially Jefferson Davis, just wanted to be left alone and independent. But Lincoln had other ideas. Hence, the way he got the South to fire the cannons at Ft. Sumter, create a reason to ask for volunteers, subdue the rebellion and start the war. But what happened when he asked for soldiers to march south and put down the rebellion? The most important and influential state in the Union; Virginia, and 3 more of her sister states, TN, NC and AR also walked out the door. Mr. Lincoln and numerous people of the North got their war!