Confederate War Aims

[Rebforever]

The cornerstone of the Confederacy was cotton.

The cornerstone of the United States was Cotton.

 

[atlantis]

Which still didn't result in any nation recognizing the Confedracy.
Leftyhunter

Well a victory was needed, if the soldiers hadn't deserted in droves it was doable.

 

[leftyhunter]

Well a victory was needed, if the soldiers hadn't deserted in droves it was doable.

Nations gain diplomatic recognition if they are considered viable . The Confedracy just couldn't reach that level of achievement.
Leftyhunter

 

[atlantis]

Nations gain diplomatic recognition if they are considered viable . The Confedracy just couldn't reach that level of achievement.
Leftyhunter

This is true or also if it is useful to recognize them. Being useful was not an option for the confederates so they had to prove viable. ? could they have been viable was that a bridge too far.

 

[leftyhunter]

This is true or also if it is useful to recognize them. Being useful was not an option for the confederates so they had to prove viable. ? could they have been viable was that a bridge too far.

The Confedracy had to earn the right to be viable on the battlefield. There was debate in the British Cabinet about granting the Confedracy recognition but not so much after the battle of Antietam.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

The cornerstone of the United States was Cotton.

Not at all. The US economy grew even when cotton exports were greatly curtailed during the ACW.
Leftyhunter

 

[unionblue]

This letter was written prior to the founding of the confederate states of America. In December only SC had seceded, it was a different situation by June of 61 with 11 states having seceded and formed a confederation with a landmass equal to France, Spain and the low countries.

Not exactly true. The letter comments about other "separate states" having the same problem so the British could see the trend of the slaveholding states seceding and still not be recognized as a sovereign nation.

 

[unionblue]

The cornerstone of the United States was Cotton.

Then why withhold it from England?

Then why didn't the US collapse when cotton no longer was shipped North?

Because the Confederacy and it's leadership over estimated that particular cornerstone.

 

[jackt62]

This is true or also if it is useful to recognize them. Being useful was not an option for the confederates so they had to prove viable. ? could they have been viable was that a bridge too far.

When all is said and done about foreign recognition of the Confederacy, the lead had to be taken by the British. That government was realistic and shrewd enough to base its decision on what was in the best interests of Great Britain. Ultimately, there was no compelling reason for the British to side with the Confederacy. History has proven that siding with the Union was the right decision for them.

 

[OpnCoronet]

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.

Students of history have to be careful to try to see the events and actions being studied in the light of the times being studied and not by the light of present day looking back.

At the time of the ACW, the confederacy proclaimed itself a free and independent country, being unjustly invaded by a hostile foreign country.

The Davis administration tried to present itself as a small peaceful country, being attacked by a powerful enemy country engaged in ab unprovoked war to destroy the csa. Davis claimed that the csa was peaceful and wanted to only live in peace with the rest of the world, that they had no claims outside its own borders to justify a war of aggression by anyone.

To justify those claims, the Davis Administration and could not be seen as doing anything that would suggest that the csa had ambitions other than as a peaceful country interested only in defending its own bords.er and called upon the judgement of the world to see the Truth of their claims.

It would not be well, early in the War to be seen as enthusiastic participantt in an aggressive war of conquest outside its own borders.


P.S. Lee was more pragmatic about what it would take to defend its borders than Davis, at least early in the War, when the chances of taking Washington, was best.

 

[jackt62]

The Davis Administration and could not be seen as doing anything that would suggest that the csa had ambitions other than as a peaceful country interested only in defending its own bords.er and called upon the judgement of the world to see the Truth of their claims.

I'm sure this is how Davis and the Confederacy viewed themselves. But the reality was that the Confederacy coveted areas beyond its own borders of the 11 seceded states. In addition to actively seeking the takeover of 2 loyal states (Missouri and Kentucky), the Confederacy asserted rights to portions of the southwest territories that were acquired by the US after the Mexican War. Military attempts to bring these states and areas under Confederate control continued through much of the war.

 

[leftyhunter]

Students of history have to be careful to try to see the events and actions being studied in the light of the times being studied and not by the light of present day looking back.

At the time of the ACW, the confederacy proclaimed itself a free and independent country, being unjustly invaded by a hostile foreign country.

The Davis administration tried to present itself as a small peaceful country, being attacked by a powerful enemy country engaged in ab unprovoked war to destroy the csa. Davis claimed that the csa was peaceful and wanted to only live in peace with the rest of the world, that they had no claims outside its own borders to justify a war of aggression by anyone.

To justify those claims, the Davis Administration and could not be seen as doing anything that would suggest that the csa had ambitions other than as a peaceful country interested only in defending its own bords.er and called upon the judgement of the world to see the Truth of their claims.

It would not be well, early in the War to be seen as enthusiastic participantt in an aggressive war of conquest outside its own borders.


P.S. Lee was more pragmatic about what it would take to defend its borders than Davis, at least early in the War, when the chances of taking Washington, was best.

Except early in the war the Confedracy tried to size the New Mexico Territory all the way to San Bernardino CA but was halted at the battle of Glorieta Pass. It was a small battle but it would of been known to the British.
Leftyhunter

 

[GwilymT]

The cornerstone of the Confederacy was cotton.

Not according to the confederate Vice President, but I'll take your word over his...

 

[GwilymT]

Pro slavery fanatics like Yancey or Rhett were sidelined, market forces would have killed off slavery by the mid 1880s.
As for a post ACW movement for independence be patient it will happen.

There is absolutely no sound argument that slavery would have magically disappeared by the 1880s.

 

[GwilymT]

No it does not have to be defined by slavery and ****. The goal was to create a more permanent union by restricting the power of the federal gov't of the confederation.

Was Mississippi lying when they stated at the beginning of their declaration of secession that their position was "thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery"?

That seems pretty definitive to me.

 

[GwilymT]

No it does not have to be defined by slavery and ****. The goal was to create a more permanent union by restricting the power of the federal gov't of the confederation.

The goal was to protect slavery and ****. They said so themselves, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. And after the war, the second white southerners were back in power they instituted a system of **** that lasted well into the twentieth century.

We can pretend otherwise so that we can still engage in some misplaced notion of ancestor and heritage worship but without coming to grips with the facts such an exercise is hollow and says more about modern attitudes than it does about history.

 

[Old_Glory]

Not according to the confederate Vice President, but I'll take your word over his...

You should read Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address sometime instead of bias history authors who highlight the words of the Vice President over the President because it's what they wish was true.

 

[leftyhunter]

You should read Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address sometime instead of bias history authors who highlight the words of the Vice President over the President because it's what they wish was true.

I don't recall Jefferson Davis arguing to establish a multi racial democracy and outlaw slavery. A link to that speech would be great.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

You should read Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address sometime instead of bias history authors who highlight the words of the Vice President over the President because it's what they wish was true.

If one reads Jefferson Davis' s speech there are lots of euphemisms on slavery such has property rights. In no part of the speech did Jefferson Davis say why exactly the Southern states were seceeding other then vague references to some sort of wrong doings that he did not specify.
The Confedrate Counstitution is very specific of the rights of slave owners.
In no part of Davis's speech did he state that slavery has nothing to do with cause of Secession and the South will be a multi racial democracy.
Leftyhunter

 

[Copperhead-mi]

You should read Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address sometime instead of bias history authors who highlight the words of the Vice President over the President because it's what they wish was true.

An inaugural address for the first presidency of a newly formed country isn't a causes for secession speech. Davis's Inaugural was his 20 minutes to introduce the fledgling Confederate nation to the world and convince them or at least give them food for thought that when the CSA comes knocking for aid and recognition, they are worthy to receive it. The last thing he'd want to do is highlight slavery as the Confederacy's raison d'etre before the countries in Europe that had abolished it.