Confederate War Aims

[th'anchoriticsybarite]

You are really asking 2 different questions. In the early days of the war, the South was so sure of the righteousness of its position that it really could not conceive of the concept that the North would attempt to coerce it back into the Union. Had they understood the long term ramifications, it would have ridiculously easily to have sent a single regiment or even a few companies and not only have captured DC but properly timed even captured Lincoln himself.

Secondly there was a real perception in South that they were not fighting to defeat the North or capture its capitol, but simply to secure their own independence. Even as late as Lee's first incursion ending in Antietam, he did so with a pitiful army of 45,000 against well over 100,000 Northerners. One reason his army was so small was that many Confederated refuse to take offensive action against the North. They had not yet comprehended how focused the Union was on the concept that the South could/would not be allowed to separate from the Union.

Finally by late 1862 or early 63', Washington DC was the most heavily fortified capitol on the face of the earth. Lee's army having no field artillery had as much chance of taking DC than I would have to defeat the heavy weight champion of the world (I being 70, fat 5'6", overweight and needing glasses.) Early's seeming oppurtunity in '65 was due only to the fact that Grant had foolishly stripped its defenders to add to his attack on Richmond. Apart from that the defenses of DC could have probably held against all the combined armies of Europe. I had the good fortune of hearing a presentation at the Augusta Civil War Round Table by an author of a book about Union fortifications of DC. He was quite emphatic that the size and complexity of the defenses around the capitol city were unrivaled in the world in 186

 

[th'anchoriticsybarite]

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.

The problem is that we are discussing a legal/political question which was solved by force majure. I do not think that the question has an absolute answer either way. I have always thought that secession was legal but only a fool would have taken that route. Had the South remained in the Union we could easily have slavery today. As long as the South maintained the then current balance of free/slave states and absolutely prevented any additional states from being added the status quo could have been preserved. Of course you would have had the absurd situation of territories which are states today remaining territories.
The basic idiocy of the Southern position, was that to succeed they would have had to add more slave states. Unfortunately that would have required annexing Mexico, Cuba or something similar. Even if the North had agreed Europe would have most certainly NOT. You would have seen massive opposition from Britain and France. And if necessary armed oppositon.
But what about Ariz, NM, Colo, Nev, Utah, N&S D, ID, WYO. Well in the 1860's the primary use of those states was ranching. What happens when you put a slave on a horse (to ride the range), you get a free man. So politically slavery is dead, legally it is dead, and practically it is dead. And the cherry on top of the pudding is that in not so many years when Mr Boll Weavil rears his ugly head it is dead period.

 

[CSA Today]

When it became a state like any other state.
Leftyhunter

When did California get a black US senator?

 

[lurid]

When did California get a black US senator?

2017. Kamala Harris.

List of African-American United States senators - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_African-American_U...

 

[OpnCoronet]

He did join the group of people that wanted to colonize the freed black.

edited- removed slaves.

Lincoln favored colonization as a best solution to problems that had little or no reference to cotton or economics

 

[PapaReb]

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.

Very well said.

 

[BuckeyeWarrior]

You are really asking 2 different questions. In the early days of the war, the South was so sure of the righteousness of its position that it really could not conceive of the concept that the North would attempt to coerce it back into the Union. Had they understood the long term ramifications, it would have ridiculously easily to have sent a single regiment or even a few companies and not only have captured DC but properly timed even captured Lincoln himself.

Secondly there was a real perception in South that they were not fighting to defeat the North or capture its capitol, but simply to secure their own independence. Even as late as Lee's first incursion ending in Antietam, he did so with a pitiful army of 45,000 against well over 100,000 Northerners. One reason his army was so small was that many Confederated refuse to take offensive action against the North. They had not yet comprehended how focused the Union was on the concept that the South could/would not be allowed to separate from the Union.

Finally by late 1862 or early 63', Washington DC was the most heavily fortified capitol on the face of the earth. Lee's army having no field artillery had as much chance of taking DC than I would have to defeat the heavy weight champion of the world (I being 70, fat 5'6", overweight and needing glasses.) Early's seeming oppurtunity in '65 was due only to the fact that Grant had foolishly stripped its defenders to add to his attack on Richmond. Apart from that the defenses of DC could have probably held against all the combined armies of Europe. I had the good fortune of hearing a presentation at the Augusta Civil War Round Table by an author of a book about Union fortifications of DC. He was quite emphatic that the size and complexity of the defenses around the capitol city were unrivaled in the world in 186

I would say that the southern rebels had deluded themselves more than they were sure of their righteousness. Just like many plantation families had deluded themselves into believing their slaves loved them and then were shocked and angry when the slaves told the Union forces were the valuables were.

President Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832 | American Battlefield Trust (battlefields.org)

A President had warned a southern state just 30 years prior what would happen if a state attempted secession. Then prior to the firing on Sumter seven northern state legislatures sent to congress resolutions condemning secession as unconstitutional/treasonous and pledging their state's resources to fight it. The rebels had to know of this.

Joint Resolutions of Indiana State Legislature. (civilwarcauses.org)
State of Maine (civilwarcauses.org)
Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Minnesota, (civilwarcauses.org)
New Jersey Resolutions (civilwarcauses.org)
New York Resolutions (civilwarcauses.org)
Ohio Resolutions (civilwarcauses.org)
Resolutions of Pennsylvania (civilwarcauses.org)

 

[John S. Carter]

The problem is that we are discussing a legal/political question which was solved by force majure. I do not think that the question has an absolute answer either way. I have always thought that secession was legal but only a fool would have taken that route. Had the South remained in the Union we could easily have slavery today. As long as the South maintained the then current balance of free/slave states and absolutely prevented any additional states from being added the status quo could have been preserved. Of course you would have had the absurd situation of territories which are states today remaining territories.
The basic idiocy of the Southern position, was that to succeed they would have had to add more slave states. Unfortunately that would have required annexing Mexico, Cuba or something similar. Even if the North had agreed Europe would have most certainly NOT. You would have seen massive opposition from Britain and France. And if necessary armed oppositon.
But what about Ariz, NM, Colo, Nev, Utah, N&S D, ID, WYO. Well in the 1860's the primary use of those states was ranching. What happens when you put a slave on a horse (to ride the range), you get a free man. So politically slavery is dead, legally it is dead, and practically it is dead. And the cherry on top of the pudding is that in not so many years when Mr Boll Weavil rears his ugly head it is dead period.

The South would not wait for the these territories to become states in order that the North become stronger and therefore have greater political control in Congress. There was also the thought that these states were not suitable for agriculture. That was the reason that the South had filibusters sent to the Caribbean to attempt to possible annex those islands and even Mexico. Those islands were suitable for the plantation system. How close they came would be interesting to know. This was no different than Northeast desiring to move into Canada .How many attempts were made ? The political leaders were fearful,with the attitude of the North and West becoming more hostel towards the slavery and the South generally , that to wait would risk their own way of life with NORTH assuming the mantel of authority in Washington. Then there was the fact that the emotions of the people over years of feelings of hostility that the North had expressed towards the South's particular life style and with the election of "that Black Republican" this would be the ideal time. Secession was their political banner that they would carry believing that they had the authority to bring their states to this act, and convincing the states they dd .

 

[NedBaldwin]

I would say that the southern rebels had deluded themselves more than they were sure of their righteousness. Just like many plantation families had deluded themselves into believing their slaves loved them and then were shocked and angry when the slaves told the Union forces were the valuables were.

President Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832 | American Battlefield Trust (battlefields.org)

A President had warned a southern state just 30 years prior what would happen if a state attempted secession. Then prior to the firing on Sumter seven northern state legislatures sent to congress resolutions condemning secession as unconstitutional/treasonous and pledging their state's resources to fight it. The rebels had to know of this.

Joint Resolutions of Indiana State Legislature. (civilwarcauses.org)
State of Maine (civilwarcauses.org)
Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Minnesota, (civilwarcauses.org)
New Jersey Resolutions (civilwarcauses.org)
New York Resolutions (civilwarcauses.org)
Ohio Resolutions (civilwarcauses.org)
Resolutions of Pennsylvania (civilwarcauses.org)

There are more than can be added to that list, though I dont have links handy-- Michigan, Massachusetts, Wisconsin

 

[atlantis]

One war aim was creating a credible army/navy. For the navy an almost impossible task but the army was doable. What mistakes can be identified in the organization of the provisional army and what of the regular army that was never established.

 

[leftyhunter]

When did California get a black US senator?

Talk to the Mods about modern politics and get back to me.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

One war aim was creating a credible army/navy. For the navy an almost impossible task but the army was doable. What mistakes can be identified in the organization of the provisional army and what of the regular army that was never established.

Define creditable. Other then retaking Galveston ,Texas few if any examples of the Confedrate Army retaking lost territory.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

The South would not wait for the these territories to become states in order that the North become stronger and therefore have greater political control in Congress. There was also the thought that these states were not suitable for agriculture. That was the reason that the South had filibusters sent to the Caribbean to attempt to possible annex those islands and even Mexico. Those islands were suitable for the plantation system. How close they came would be interesting to know. This was no different than Northeast desiring to move into Canada .How many attempts were made ? The political leaders were fearful,with the attitude of the North and West becoming more hostel towards the slavery and the South generally , that to wait would risk their own way of life with NORTH assuming the mantel of authority in Washington. Then there was the fact that the emotions of the people over years of feelings of hostility that the North had expressed towards the South's particular life style and with the election of "that Black Republican" this would be the ideal time. Secession was their political banner that they would carry believing that they had the authority to bring their states to this act, and convincing the states they dd .

Over forty percent of the Southern population was connected enough with the Union to work or fight on behalf of the Union. A badly divided Confedracy is going to have a tough time fighting a larger opponent.
Leftyhunter

 

[atlantis]

Define creditable. Other then retaking Galveston ,Texas few if any examples of the Confedrate Army retaking lost territory.
Leftyhunter

Losing a war doesn't mean an army isn't a credible force. The confederates created a credible army but what could have been done to make it more effective.

 

[leftyhunter]

Losing a war doesn't mean an army isn't a credible force. The confederates created a credible army but what could have been done to make it more effective.

I will concede the Confedrate Army was a credible force but at the end of the day that is not good enough. For the Confedrate Army to be a better force it would need more men and more motivated men plus much better logistics much easier said then done.
Leftyhunter

 

[John S. Carter]

Losing a war doesn't mean an army isn't a credible force. The confederates created a credible army but what could have been done to make it more effective.

What was needed was the industrial might of the North with the economic wealth to maintain it. Then there was the large population upon which to fill its ranks ,along with the timely arrival of Irish immigrants and blacks, free and former slaves. which this administration was willing to place on the line ,Then to there is the fact of an established government with a capable administration to carry this war to its conclusion. The fact that Lincoln acted as swiftly as he did in calling up the forces did not allow the Confederate government to have the time to establish more control over war preparation that was needed. might have had the most important factor than any other . That bring about another factor, the North had the rail system to transport troops and ordinances across the regions faster than the South ,from the West to the East and to where required., Confederacy while having rail system it was not as well connected as the Northern system and lacked the engineering in its military that could repair damaged rail system. ,which means transportation of troops and ordinance favored the North.

 

[CSA Today]

Talk to the Mods about modern politics and get back to me.
Leftyhunter

Why don't talk to them about changing the topic? The topic is Confederate war aims not social changes.

 

[lurid]

Losing a war doesn't mean an army isn't a credible force. The confederates created a credible army but what could have been done to make it more effective.

So what, it doesn't mean they were a credible force either. The reason why armies go to war is to advance their government or country's political, economic and social agenda, which the success of that measures whether or not they are a credible force. The Confederates did not complete their governments goals, so they were not a credible force. Credible means that something was successful and was sure to make an impact after the war, but the Confederates folded after four years and did not make concessions. They unconditionally surrendered and were at the mercy of their enemy for over 100 years. Now a credible force would have made some impact to benefit their cause, but they didn't.

You are confusing military prowess with a credible force. The Confederates showed they had some military capability here and there because they were dug in(fortified) but never imposed their will on their enemy. Therefore, your statement that losing a war doesn't mean an army isn't a credible force is incorrect in relation to the Confederacy because after losing the war they were defunct. Not remotely a credible force...

 

[edfranksphd]

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.
Leftyhunter

Many in North were opposed to slavery not b/c they hated slavery but b/c they hated Blacks and didn't want a country in which in would be possible for free blacks and whites to live side by side!? This was esp true among northern democrats, Copperheads. if so, then, yes, the south WAS more progressive when it came to race, ironically, and, of course, this is not intended to justify in any way the peculiar institution of chattel slavery.

 

[jackt62]

Many in North were opposed to slavery not b/c they hated slavery but b/c they hated Blacks and didn't want a country in which in would be possible for free blacks and whites to live side by side!? This was esp true among northern democrats, Copperheads. if so, then, yes, the south WAS more progressive when it came to race, ironically, and, of course, this is not intended to justify in any way the peculiar institution of chattel slavery.

Agreed that much of northern opposition to slavery was not because they espoused civil rights for African Americans but rather because the free soil movement argued that a slave society depressed wages and opportunities for white men. That being said, I would never claim that the south was "more progressive" when it came to race. Both north and south were guilty in their treatment of the Black population with the difference being the additional oppressive burden of slavery that existed in the states in which it was still lawful.