You argued that because there were Southern AA Senators during Reconstruction therefore the South was more racially progressive then the North. This point is not valid because AAs weren't allowed to vote in the South until well into the modern era and only because of " meddling Yankees".there was no black chosen in the North until 1967 and how senators were chosen was not a Confederate war aim. I am still waiting for you to tell me when the first black was elected/chosen in California.
Tim Scott has been a US senator from South Carolina since 2013.
What good would it do to capture DC, unless the entire Union army was defending it? U win wars by defeating armies, not by capturing cities, even capitals. Both the South and the North understood this. Lincoln wanted the ANV captured, not Richmond. Lee wanted the AOP captured, not DC.
The Confedracy from the start fought an offensive war to seize the border states and the American South West but they failed. Wars are not won on the defensive with the exceptions of the battle of Malta and Napoleon's Invasion of Russia. If the Confedracy could sieze Washington DC that might demoralize Northern public opinion to the extent of the Union negotiating a peace settlement with the Confedracy.I agree. Attacking Washington DC gave them little benefit and would be a stark contrast to their rhetoric of simply wanting to leave. By attacking Washington, they would demonstrate a desire to conquer. The power of the Union North was not in Washington DC. It would be nothing more than fools gold.
When did California get a US senator?You argued that because there were Southern AA Senators during Reconstruction therefore the South was more racially progressive then the North. This point is not valid because AAs weren't allowed to vote in the South until well into the modern era and only because of " meddling Yankees".
California was far more intergrated then any Southern state decade before the South was but that's modern politics.
He did join the group of people that wanted to colonize the freed black.In the North, abolition was seldom just a matter of economics.
I believe it was in Lincolns Peoria Speech, that he listed the reasons he hated slavery and none of them concerned economics, or, cotton.
Great question! I don't know if there ever was such a strategy session or sessions. There were certainly discussions about regional concerns such as the defense of Vicksburg, and the authorization of Lee's Pennsylvania incursion. But I continue to believe that a major problem with Confederate independence was that it was more of an idea, rather than a practical goal.Was there a meeting of Davis and the secretary of war on a general strategy for achieving independence . Or did Davis simply respond to events.
To some extent you are playing a game of semantics. The colonies declaration of independence from the British Empire was termed rebellion...the secession of the Confederate States from the United States was termed a rebellion. What do you see as an overwhelming difference other than the fact that one was successful and the other was not?
Not asking about the reasons for rebellion/secession, just the act itself.
Needed ; desired ,called for, compulsory, essential ,lacking, necessary, obligatory, required , requisite, wanted =NEED ,crave, require, want, wish. These are just certain meanings for needed or need, Please to explain what is meant by the CSA needing the war to exist. There is only one reason for a war that being to unite the states .But then some states may not have wanted the war and had succeeded from the Confederacy as some sections did. May be it was needed to resolve this issue that had threated the Union since it creation not just the South but the North also. What means had not been attempted ,there was no more intimations ,no more compromises ,and the great statesmen were no longer to be called upon .The horror was that both sides were under an illusion as to how it would proceed from the beginningThe existence of the CSA violated the territorial integrity of the USA
the CSA needed war to even exist
See belowNeeded ; desired ,called for, compulsory, essential ,lacking, necessary, obligatory, required , requisite, wanted =NEED ,crave, require, want, wish. These are just certain meanings for needed or need, Please to explain what is meant by the CSA needing the war to exist.
Not so. The States were not out of the Union according to US law, US treaties etc.... but the states were already out of the Union ...
Both are considered rebellions in US history so not sure what you are trying to sayNo, you are playing semantics by equating British history with USA history, which they are not synonymous. You cannot say that the US of America rebelled towards the thrown is synonymous with southern secession because only the latter is considered a rebellion in USA history, because it was a region of the United States of America that rebelled against another region of the United States of America.
AFTER the Revolution, States had their own Constitutions, they didnt before. They did have charters with the Crown , which I suppose one could say are similar to Constitutions but they really arentThe Revolutionary war were Colonies fighting against the British thrown that oversaw the Colonies, but no country was ever established, therefore it was a rebellion towards a administration not against an established country. Before the Revolutionary War each state had its own constitution, after the Revolutionary war the states joined together to form the Federal Government and the constitution.
Yet there was a government - the Continental Congress that prepared and adopted the Declaration of Independence, formed and supported the army under Washington, etcDuring the colonies so-called rebellion there was no concrete government but opposition towards the King.
Both are considered rebellions in US history so not sure what you are trying to say
AFTER the Revolution, States had their own Constitutions, they didnt before. They did have charters with the Crown , which I suppose one could say are similar to Constitutions but they really arent
Yet there was a government - the Continental Congress that prepared and adopted the Declaration of Independence, formed and supported the army under Washington, etc
The war would not make it reality. Victory over the Union army would have made it reality to the North. To the Southern people they were no longer connected to the Union politically. The war would be their Revolutionary war and the Declaration of Independence would be their declaration. This is the ideal the propelled the South into that war. As Jefferson saw his party as the inheritors of the Revolutionary war and the Federalist as monarchist this is how the leaders of the Confederacy saw themselves. The Confedercery were the Jeffersonians Democrats' and the Union were the Hamiltonian Federalist finally coming to heads.See below
Not so. The States were not out of the Union according to US law, US treaties etc.
The claim that they were out of the Union was just rhetoric and propaganda from empty declarations and invalid ordinances
War was needed to make it a reality
|Confederate Pensions||Researching Your Civil War Ancestry||2|
|CS Hawes Jr., Richard - Confederate Governor of Kentucky||Biographies of the Civil War||1|
|Notes on the Composition of Some Confederate First Corps Artillery Batteries at Gettysburg||Gettysburg||7|
|Perryville The Kentucky Campaign: A Confederate Victory?||South & Western Theaters||38|
|M||Tell me more! Union and Confederate use of British Army Soldiers' Accoutrements||Uniforms & Relics||2|