Confederate War Aims

[thomas aagaard]

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.

Only they didn't.
The wanted to include Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and Arizona...


And your rhetoric is based on a faulty idea that they two situations are directly comparable.

In 1776 the men knew very well that they where rebels and what they did where illegal. they where not seceding from the British empire, they where rebelling.

In 1861 the states where arguing that what they did was legal and they where seceding from a union they had voluntarily joined.

Comparing the two like you are doing is a rather typical example of mythmaking. The two situations are not the same.

So calling the men in 1776 for secessionists is anachronistic.

 

[thomas aagaard]

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!

So how did he do that? did he sit down and have a chat with the members of the CSA congress?

Do you have so little respect for the CSA politicians that you think they where not able of making their own decisions?

 

[thomas aagaard]

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.

Then why did the CSA congress decide to start a war?

 

[Sovereign States]

Then why did the CSA congress decide to start a war?

It was the United States president who started the war.

 

[thomas aagaard]

It was the United States president who started the war.

So Lincoln was a member in the CSA congress when it ordered that force should be used at to take that US fort on US soil?
Or was he in Charleston manning csa cannons?
Or did he give the order that they would not wait for two days until the fort ran out of food?


And if he wanted a war, why did he not prepare for it?
Every single US army infantry company was west of the Mississippi when the csa attack fort Sumter.

 

[Sovereign States]

Only they didn't.
The wanted to include Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and Arizona...


And your rhetoric is based on a faulty idea that they two situations are directly comparable.

In 1776 the men knew very well that they where rebels and what they did where illegal. they where not seceding from the British empire, they where rebelling.

In 1861 the states where arguing that what they did was legal and they where seceding from a union they had voluntarily joined.

Comparing the two like you are doing is a rather typical example of mythmaking. The two situations are not the same.

So calling the men in 1776 for secessionists is anachronistic.

The Union slave states of Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware all remained in the union, and, in fact, were later joined by the slave state of West Virginia (which seceded from Virginia). And your prattle is based on the deeply erroneous idea that there is some dissimilarity between two identical situations. The secessionist of 1776 knew perfectly well they were seceding from the British Empire, but they also knew that the Crown and Parliament would declare it to be treason and rebellion, and a slave-owners rebellion at that. But you are correct in that the union of states under the Constitution was a voluntary union. The states did not join the Mafia, where ruthless and unholy violence is a coercive tool used to compel compliance. And denying that the separation of 1776 was anything other than a perfect act of secession is bizarre.

 

[Sovereign States]

So Lincoln was a member in the CSA congress when it ordered that force should be used at to take that US fort on US soil?
Or was he in Charleston manning csa cannons?
Or did he give the order that they would not wait for two days until the fort ran out of food?


And if he wanted a war, why did he not prepare for it?
Every single US army infantry company was west of the Mississippi when the csa attack fort Sumter.

So Lincoln honored the request from the Confederate States of America to withdraw his military forces from their territory?

Or did he order the U.S. soldiers to hold and occupy Confederate States territory and property?

And did he surreptitiously send men and materials of war to Charleston Harbor?

And if the CSA wanted war, why didn't they openly declare war upon seceding?

Not so much as a single seceded state declared war on the United States.

 

[thomas aagaard]

And denying that the separation of 1776 was anything other than a perfect act of secession is bizarre.

Seriously... didn't you study the declaration of independence forward and backwards in school?

1776 was a rebellion. The men who did it where completely honest about that.
They where making a moral argument based on "Laws of Nature" "and unalienable Rights" that was they did was morally justified.
There where not seceding from a political union. They where rebellion against their sovereign king.


In 1861 they where making a legal argument about undoing an earlier political decision.



Comparing the two is comparing apples and fish... both can be eaten, but that is it.

 

[thomas aagaard]

So Lincoln honored the request from the Confederate States of America to withdraw his military forces from their territory?

Or was he did he order the U.S. soldiers to hold and occupy Confederate States territory and property?

And did he surreptitiously send men and materials of war to Charleston Harbor?

And if the CSA wanted war, why didn't they openly declare war upon seceding?

Not so much as a single seceded state declared war on the United States.

Fort Sumter was a US fort on US soil. South Carolina transferred the area to the federal government back in the 1830ties.
When Jefferson Davis was secretary of war, he tried to return it... the SC state house said no.

Even if south Carolina was out of the union, that would have no influence on the legal status of the fort since the area was not part of south Carolina.

The world where full of enclaves like that.

 

[Sovereign States]

Seriously... didn't you study the declaration of independence forward and backwards in school?

1776 was a rebellion. The men who did it where completely honest about that.
They where making a moral argument based on "Laws of Nature" "and unalienable Rights" that was they did was morally justified.
There where not seceding from a political union. They where rebellion against their sovereign king.


In 1861 they where making a legal argument about undoing an earlier political decision.



Comparing the two is comparing apples and fish... both can be eaten, but that is it.

No kidding, have you ever even read the Declaration? It says absolutely nothing about rebelling against the King. Absolutely nothing. Instead, it claims the colonies were "impelled to a separation". And does the date July 2nd mean nothing to you? Did you not read the Resolution of Independence that was adopted that day? Did you really not know that the secession effected by the Resolution preceded the DoI?

Claiming the two events were dissimilar is like howling at the moon. It's noise, but it makes no sense.

 

[Sovereign States]

Fort Sumter was a US fort on US soil. South Carolina transferred the area to the federal government back in the 1830ties.
When Jefferson Davis was secretary of war, he tried to return it... the SC state house said no.

Even if south Carolina was out of the union, that would have no influence on the legal status of the fort since the area was not part of south Carolina.

The world where full of enclaves like that.

Ft. Sumter was a fort on the soil of the Confederate States of America. And the People of South Carolina, in their high sovereign capacity, withdrew their state from the union of states under the U.S. Constitution. Everything else is subordinate to those facts.

 

[A. Roy]

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?

That's actually what this thread is about. Regardless of whether secession was right or wrong, why didn't Confederate strategy focus on trying to take Washington City to threaten the Federal government and its seat?

Roy B.

 

[OpnCoronet]

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.

Two reasons; First, the South claimed to be fighting only to defend its own borders. Second, later in the war, it was the lack of opportunity to take it.

Washington was protected by the most formidable and strongest defensive works ever constructed during the War. It would have taken a maximum effort of the entire confederacy to take them, not just those in Va.


P.S. Washington was not taken , not because it was not thought of or planned,, or, even tried. It was their lack of will by Southern leaders and lack of ability of its military.

 

[jackt62]

Ft. Sumter was a fort on the soil of the Confederate States of America. And the People of South Carolina, in their high sovereign capacity, withdrew their state from the union of states under the U.S. Constitution. Everything else is subordinate to those facts.

South Carolina's withdrawal from the Union was not done "under the Constitution" as the Constitution does not speak on the issue of secession. Thus, to hold that Ft. Sumter was a fort on "Confederate soil" requires a leap of faith by asserting that states had an unquestioned legal right to secede and moreover, to gain automatic possession of federal (not state), facilities within their borders. This theory was tested and discredited after 4 years of war that resulted in the loss of over 700,000 lives.

 

[CSA Today]

Only they didn't.
The wanted to include Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and Arizona...


And your rhetoric is based on a faulty idea that they two situations are directly comparable.

In 1776 the men knew very well that they where rebels and what they did where illegal. they where not seceding from the British empire, they where rebelling.

In 1861 the states where arguing that what they did was legal and they where seceding from a union they had voluntarily joined.

Comparing the two like you are doing is a rather typical example of mythmaking. The two situations are not the same.

So calling the men in 1776 for secessionists is anachronistic.

Regardless of what you want to call the process it would seem to me that withdrawing from an illegally created country is more justifiable than a withdrawal from one created legally. Perhaps by seceding from an illegal entity the Confederate Founding Fathers were doing penance for the impropriety of their ancestors?

 

[wausaubob]

Napoleon won wars against monarchs by capturing those monarchs' capitals. But he also captured and occupied Moscow, but the Russian people withdrew from the capital and waged a partisan war against the retreat of the French army. So it did not always work.

 

[wausaubob]

Washington, D.C. had been the capital for about 70 years. It was essentially a southern city, which allowed slavery until 1862. The commercial and cultural capital of the US in 1861 was New York/Brooklyn/Newark and the surrounding towns. The capacity of the US to conduct the war would have been minimally affected by the loss of Washington, D.C. The US Civil War was one of those instances in which capturing the capital would have had very little effect on the outcome of the war.

 

[PapaReb]

Only they didn't.
The wanted to include Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and Arizona...


And your rhetoric is based on a faulty idea that they two situations are directly comparable.

In 1776 the men knew very well that they where rebels and what they did where illegal. they where not seceding from the British empire, they where rebelling.

In 1861 the states where arguing that what they did was legal and they where seceding from a union they had voluntarily joined.

Comparing the two like you are doing is a rather typical example of mythmaking. The two situations are not the same.

So calling the men in 1776 for secessionists is anachronistic.

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.

 

[wausaubob]

If the war had been about Virginia and Maryland and the east coast, as if it was still 1776, Washington, D.C. would have been a crucial location. But by 1861 the war was about Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska. It was about linking California by telegraph, and committing to a national railroad, which the western states and territories strongly favored.
While the Confederacy concentrated at Richmond, and threatened Washington, D.C., the Republicans took control of the west and most of the Mississippi River. By July of 1862 they had achieved one of their primary policy goals. Slavery was not going to allowed to expand in the west. As a bonus, the Missouri compromise was set aside by force of arms.

 

[unionblue]

Regardless of what you want to call the process it would seem to me that withdrawing from an illegally created country is more justifiable than a withdrawal from one created legally. Perhaps by seceding from an illegal entity the Confederate Founding Fathers were doing penance for the impropriety of their ancestors?

Good grief!

Really? The lengths one must go to approve of a rebellion, a right to unilateral, unconstitutional secession for the United States, has more twists and turns in such fairy tales as to remind one of a snake with a broken back.

"Penance for the impropriety of their ancestors" indeed.

Next will be the excuse of time travelers from the future or aliens from other planets spreading the cause of secession.