Confederate War Aims

[leftyhunter]

Yeah and how long did it take to get a US senator in the self-proclaimed enlightened and righteous North?

Less time then the South .
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

One of the Confederate war aims surely had to have been to be rid of these self-serving Yankee hypocrites.

The South could of proved the Yankees were worse by ensuring racial equality on their own especially in terms of voting rights, job discrimination and ending miscegenation laws but for some mysterious reason that didn't come to pass.
Leftyhunter

 

[Old_Glory]

Are these the only words of Davis that you can accept??? Why can't you check out the following address he made and another one that the Confederate Congress presented. I have not given the presentation text, but my source, which will Allow you to find and read in full. (I do have the full text of both items right here on my desktop so can present if you are unable to find, but due to size prefer to hold off--have fun) And, If I remember correctly, he also stated during his term as Sec. Of War, that secession was illegal. But, of course, his own slaves were not threatened at that time. If his opinion can change, why not Lincoln, or any other political individual????

I do not see anything in that document. If you highlight the specific items you are addressing in that document, I can respond.

The inaugural address is the most important speech of Davis' life and the Confederacy. If its nation and war goals were related slavery, it would have been the foundation of the speech. Slavery was a part of the Cotton industry (which was mentioned) and that is why it was so important. The speech clearly shows, slavery was not the main reason the Confederates formed a new uinon, nor was it a goal of the War. The reason they left is because they felt the Constitution had been permanently violated to the sole benefit of the North and West and their War goal was to leave and stay gone preferably peacefully (as was also mentioned in the speech).

 

[uaskme]

Hogwash. If the two Border states and four Southern states had gone to Democrat Seymour in 1868, Grant would have still won by 40 electoral points. As to your other unsubstantiated charge of Grant-- his support for the Third Force Act in 1871 and subsequent use of the U.S. military to go after the Klan and other anti-black subversives leading to thousands of arrests over the next few years, is sure a strange way of throwing "Blacks to the KKK."

Whites were disenfranchised in the South. Republicans controlled the Ballot Boxes. Blacks were allowed to vote. Grant got 450,000 southern black votes that gave him the popular majority. Most importantly it gave the Republicans a majority in the Senate. Republicans needed enough time so as to murder enough Native Americans in the West so as to manipulate enough Republican Senators. That was the importance any why blacks got the vote. Blacks didn't get Universal Suffrage in the
North until passage of the 15th amendment in 1870.

In July 1870 Grant signs the Naturalization Act. It Amended the 1790 Naturalization Act to allow blacks born in other countries to become American citizens through the same naturalization process available to whites. But it did not permit other non white races to nationalize. Why, because it excluded Asians. Asians lived in the West and Mid-West. Not in the South. Represented about 10% of the population of CA. So Republicans wanted Blacks to vote Republican in the South but didn't want the Chinese to Vote and have Citizenship. Latter Excluding them, all but a insignificant few. Clearly Black Voting was a means to establish a dominate Republican Party. Not done for Racial Equality.

Her is a reformers assessment of Black Voting. James Russel Lowell from Boston

 

[A. Roy]

I think this thread, entitled Confederate War Aims, is finished, as we are into many other topics and subjects that do not fit under this title/subject.

In reality, the original post for this thread basically posed the question, Why didn't the Confederacy target Washington City during the war? It wasn't about the usual conflicts over secession and slavery. Here's an excerpt from the OP:

>> 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?<<

Seems like an interesting question to me.

Roy B.

 

[GwilymT]

In reality, the original post for this thread basically posed the question, Why didn't the Confederacy target Washington City during the war? It wasn't about the usual conflicts over secession and slavery. Here's an excerpt from the OP:

>> 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?<<

Seems like an interesting question to me.

Roy B.

Was taking Washington ever really feasible for the CSA? The story of the war outside of Virginia is pretty much a story of the CSA constantly losing territory- Virginia is the only area they really put up a successful defense in terms of the big picture.

I wound venture to guess that taking Washington wasn't one of their war aims. Their aim was to obtain recognition from foreign powers or to hold out until the United States quit.

Is the question whether or not taking Washington SHOULD have been an objective? If so, was that ever really possible?

 

[A. Roy]

Is the question whether or not taking Washington SHOULD have been an objective? If so, was that ever really possible?

Good questions. From what I understand, the Washington fortifications were increased throughout the war until they were quite formidable at the end and must have been a great deterrent. I haven't read his entire report, but Maj Gen John G. Barnard of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers described the state of the Washington defenses at the end of the war:

"At the termination of the war in April, 1865, the 'defenses of Washington' consisted of 68 inclosed forts and batteries, having an aggregate perimeter of 22,800 yards, (13 miles,) and emplacements for 1,120 guns, 807 of which and 98 mortars were actually mounted; of 93 unarmed batteries for field-guns, having 401 emplacements; and of 35,711 yards (20 miles) of rifle-trenches, and 3 block-houses. Thirty-two miles of military roads, besides the existing roads of the District and the avenues of Washington, served as the means of communication from the interior to the defensive lines, and from point to point thereof. The entire circuit, including the distance across the Potomac from Fort Greble to Fort Lyon, (four miles,) was, as has already been stated, thirty seven miles."

-- J.G. Barnard, Col and Brev Maj Gen, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army. A report on the defenses of Washington, to the chief of engineers, U.S. Army. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1871. Page 86.

Roy B.

 

[Stone in the wall]

Until Early's raid on Washington I don't believe Washington was ever a goal. Lee knew it was poorly defended at the time. Most of the veteran troops had been pulled out and sent to Grant. Early had a good chance of taking it, but for Lou Wallace slowing him down.

 

[CSA Today]

The South could of proved the Yankees were worse by ensuring racial equality on their own especially in terms of voting rights, job discrimination and ending miscegenation laws but for some mysterious reason that didn't come to pass.
Leftyhunter

The South could of proved the Yankees were worse by ensuring racial equality on their own especially in terms of voting rights, job discrimination and ending miscegenation laws but for some mysterious reason that didn't come to pass.


Yankees are laughable with their do as I say do not as I do finger-wagging sanctimony. Hardly a model anyone with a modicum of pride would wish to ape.

"A meddling Yankee troubles himself about every body's matters except his own and repents of everybody's sins except his own." -- General Daniel Harvey Hill

 

[CSA Today]

Less time then the South .
Leftyhunter

Hmm, 1863 in Mississippi and 1967 Massachusetts. By the way, when did California get a black senator?

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Whites were disenfranchised in the South. Republicans controlled the Ballot Boxes. Blacks were allowed to vote. Grant got 450,000 southern black votes that gave him the popular majority. Most importantly it gave the Republicans a majority in the Senate.

I failed to include Arkansas as a Grant win in my previous post so my electoral count for the 7 Border and Southern states that went to Grant in the 1868 election totaled 52 votes. Grant won the election with a total of 214 electoral votes to Seymour's total of 80. Had Grant not won a single Border or Southern state then Seymour would have picked up a total of 52 electoral votes giving him a total 132 votes while Grant would have lost those 52 votes, giving him a total of 162 votes but still beating Seymour by 30 electoral votes. Likewise in the Congressional elections of 1868-1869, the Republicans had controlled the Senate going into the 1868-1869 congressional elections with 57 seats to 10 seats for the Democrats. In the 1868-1869 elections, the Republicans retained their 57 seats in the Senate while the Democrats lost 1 seat for a total of 9 Senate seats. Had all 7 Border and Southern states elected Democrat senators instead of Republicans, that would have changed nothing at all because the Senate would have still been controlled by the Republicans with 43 senators to 23 Democrats

 

[uaskme]

I failed to include Arkansas as a Grant win in my previous post so my electoral count for the 7 Border and Southern states that went to Grant in the 1868 election totaled 52 votes. Grant won the election with a total of 214 electoral votes to Seymour's total of 80. Had Grant not won a single Border or Southern state then Seymour would have picked up a total of 52 electoral votes giving him a total 132 votes while Grant would have lost those 52 votes, giving him a total of 162 votes but still beating Seymour by 30 electoral votes. Likewise in the Congressional elections of 1868-1869, the Republicans had controlled the Senate going into the 1868-1869 congressional elections with 57 seats to 10 seats for the Democrats. In the 1868-1869 elections, the Republicans retained their 57 seats in the Senate while the Democrats lost 1 seat for a total of 9 Senate seats. Had all 7 Border and Southern states elected Democrat senators instead of Republicans, that would have changed nothing at all because the Senate would have still been controlled by the Republicans with 43 senators to 23 Democrats

You seem to not understand. Republicans controlled the Southern States with puppet governments. If they had entered the Union and had been allowed to vote Freely, they would of voted Democratic. So Whites were disenfranchised and the Blacks were given the Vote. Radical Republicans knew they would lose control of the Federal Government if not for the Black Vote. Sure Republicans picked up a Majority in the Senate after the Confederate States Left. Incrementally held it. Slowly Southern states were Redeemed. Initially they were controlled by Republicans or excluded.

Grant had a Electoral Victory but he would not of had a Popular Majority Victory nor would Republicans controlled the Southern States Governments without Excluding Whites from voting and giving the Blacks the Vote. Senate was chosen by States Legislators. Gradually a few Southern States will be redeemed.

Then at the end of Reconstruction, Hayes trades the Presidency for removing the Republican Puppet Governments. North has had enough of political corruption in the South and fear it in the North. Liberal Republicans denounce Black Voting in the 72 Election. Actually starts a little earlier. By the end of Reconstruction even Harriet Beech Stow denounces Black Voting.

 

[lurid]

If you're trying to say that a commodity representing over 50% of all exported goods is unimportant, then what more needs to be said

What exactly does nothing more needs to be said really mean when you totally misunderstood and misrepresented my posts? Do you understand that 50% exports is 50% of 100% export and not 50% of the GDP? Do you understand that 50% of exports accounted for 5% of the national GDP? You think that 50% exports is an enormous number, but is it is only enormous to the sum of exports but minimal to the sum of the GDP = economics 101.

You stated this in post #248: 15% of total exports for the country is enormous and that number is from 1800 only 16 years after cotton exports started. That is just for raw cotton alone. Look at the other years noted in the document. It shows cotton as 60% of all exports in 1870. Over 50% in 1850. Again, you are confusing export percentages with GDP percentages. Furthermore, you are confusing microeconomics with macroeconomics, which means your viewing microeconomics(cotton exports) from top-bottom when you should be viewing it from bottom-up. Cotton exports were just a small slice of the pie chart. Look on a pie chart and see 5% slice where it ranks in the grand scheme of things:

I said this in post #241: And here we are some 150 years after the war we have people still over-estimating cotton export importance to the USA GDP. Cotton exports accounted for 5% of the national GDP. How did you determine that "unimportant" and "overestimating" are synonymous? Where did I say cotton was unimportant? Rebforever stated this in post #201: The cornerstone of the United States was Cotton. And that is overestimating cotton exports importance, and that's why I refuted that ineptitude. You responded to my post by dropping export percentages when I was talking about GDP percentages, and that's why you folks make that grave mistake of believing cotton exports were the cornerstone of the U.S. economy. From a northern/USA perspective: COTTON EXPORTS WERE NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO START A WAR OVER, NOT EVEN CLOSE. From a southern/Confederate perspective: COTTON EXPORTS WERE THE CORNERSTONE OF THEIR ECONOMY AND WERE IMPORTANT EVOUGH TO START A WAR.

Cotton exports were indispensable for the Confederate economy, which the naval blockade proved that assertion to be true. As a result, the Confederate economy contracted and contracted then crashed within four years. Whereas, the United States' economy expanded during those four years, a 3.4% GDP increase average during the CW, in spite of cotton exports not accruing any revenue. How do you explain that phenomenon?

 

[lurid]

You seem to not understand. Republicans controlled the Southern States with puppet governments. If they had entered the Union and had been allowed to vote Freely, they would of voted Democratic. So Whites were disenfranchised and the Blacks were given the Vote. Radical Republicans knew they would lose control of the Federal Government if not for the Black Vote. Sure Republicans picked up a Majority in the Senate after the Confederate States Left. Incrementally held it. Slowly Southern states were Redeemed. Initially they were controlled by Republicans or excluded.

Grant had a Electoral Victory but he would not of had a Popular Majority Victory nor would Republicans controlled the Southern States Governments without Excluding Whites from voting and giving the Blacks the Vote. Senate was chosen by States Legislators. Gradually a few Southern States will be redeemed.

Then at the end of Reconstruction, Hayes trades the Presidency for removing the Republican Puppet Governments. North has had enough of political corruption in the South and fear it in the North. Liberal Republicans denounce Black Voting in the 72 Election. Actually starts a little earlier. By the end of Reconstructio

Here is part of your excerpt: So Whites were disenfranchised and the Blacks were given the Vote. Are saying that "all" southern white people were disenfranchised? I know Confederates were disenfranchised and deserved it, but never heard any other whites that were disenfranchised. Here's another one your excerpts: Grant had a Electoral Victory but he would not of had a Popular Majority Victory. So what. He still would have won the presidency. The United States of America elects a president through the electoral college not through popular vote. How do you think: Adams, Harrison, Hayes, Bush and Trump got elected?

 

[GwilymT]

Good questions. From what I understand, the Washington fortifications were increased throughout the war until they were quite formidable at the end and must have been a great deterrent. I haven't read his entire report, but Maj Gen John G. Barnard of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers described the state of the Washington defenses at the end of the war:

"At the termination of the war in April, 1865, the 'defenses of Washington' consisted of 68 inclosed forts and batteries, having an aggregate perimeter of 22,800 yards, (13 miles,) and emplacements for 1,120 guns, 807 of which and 98 mortars were actually mounted; of 93 unarmed batteries for field-guns, having 401 emplacements; and of 35,711 yards (20 miles) of rifle-trenches, and 3 block-houses. Thirty-two miles of military roads, besides the existing roads of the District and the avenues of Washington, served as the means of communication from the interior to the defensive lines, and from point to point thereof. The entire circuit, including the distance across the Potomac from Fort Greble to Fort Lyon, (four miles,) was, as has already been stated, thirty seven miles."

-- J.G. Barnard, Col and Brev Maj Gen, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army. A report on the defenses of Washington, to the chief of engineers, U.S. Army. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1871. Page 86.

Roy B.

And I would imagine that they looked out over excellent fields of fire...

 

[GwilymT]

Until Early's raid on Washington I don't believe Washington was ever a goal. Lee knew it was poorly defended at the time. Most of the veteran troops had been pulled out and sent to Grant. Early had a good chance of taking it, but for Lou Wallace slowing him down.

Still, I don't think even Early's 64 effort would have had staying power. I think it would be more of a raid and withdrawal, had he been successful.

 

[leftyhunter]

Hmm, 1863 in Mississippi and 1967 Massachusetts. By the way, when did California get a black senator?

There was no AA Senator elected in 1863 Mississippi. When was the first AA Senator elected in the South post Reconstruction it certainly wasn't as early as 1967.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

The South could of proved the Yankees were worse by ensuring racial equality on their own especially in terms of voting rights, job discrimination and ending miscegenation laws but for some mysterious reason that didn't come to pass.


Yankees are laughable with their do as I say do not as I do finger-wagging sanctimony. Hardly a model anyone with a modicum of pride would wish to ape.

"A meddling Yankee troubles himself about every body's matters except his own and repents of everybody's sins except his own." -- General Daniel Harvey Hill

Yet it wasn't Southern white who ensured or enforced racial equality in the South. Northern states rid themselves of Miscegenation Laws long before the South. Americans need not be concerned about region where they are from to ensure all Americans receive equal rights.
Leftyhunter

 

[Stone in the wall]

Still, I don't think even Early's 64 effort would have had staying power. I think it would be more of a raid and withdrawal, had he been successful.

The fort was under defended and what troops were there were not well trained and not near as many as Early's veterans. Early knew he would have to travel fast, before it was discovered he had left the Petersburg trenthes. But yes as troops started rolling in from the Petersburg front he would have to leave. How do you say it "the Jig was up"

 

[CSA Today]

There was no AA Senator elected in 1863 Mississippi. When was the first AA Senator elected in the South post Reconstruction it certainly wasn't as early as 1967.
Leftyhunter

You didn't answer the question when did California first get a black US senator?