Confederate War Aims

[Mike Griffith]

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.

We must keep in mind that the Confederates did not want to take over the U.S. The Confederates simply wanted to leave the U.S. and then peacefully coexist with the U.S. In contrast, the Unionists wanted to destroy the Confederacy and force the Confederate states to rejoin the Union.

 

[jackt62]

the Unionists wanted to destroy the Confederacy and force the Confederate states to rejoin the Union.

That construct presupposes that the Union (the United States), and the Confederacy were 2 separate and sovereign nations. That is a faulty premise given that the official position of the Union was that secession was illegal and that the secessionists were in rebellion against the lawful authority of the United States. I know that there will be those who argue that the Constitution's silence on secession provided enough justification for disunion. But that justification stands on very shallow underpinnings and the alternate position, as espoused by the Union, was based then on political theory that has withstood the test of time until today.

 

[LetUsHavePeace]

I have copied below all the Sections of the U.S. Constitution that address the questions of Treason and the Powers Denied to the States. I think they go a long way towards explaining why the people who chose to form the Confederate States of America behaved as they did in 1861. What they do not explain or answer is my original question.
Let me ask it again, but this time with a particular specific query: "Why, after First Manassas, did Johnston and Davis not take Jackson's advice and drive straight to capture Washington, D.C.?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Some further random comments:

Article I Section 6: Rights and Disabilities of Members
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Confederates could not continue as Senators and Representatives of the United States Congress once they had declared their allegiance to the Confederacy. They would have lost their privileges of immunity under Article I Section 6.

Article I Section 10: Powers Denied to the States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

In the eyes of all sane and sensible Unionists (Ulysses Grant is representative) the United States citizens who fought for the Confederacy were not and never could be considered traitors. They had rebelled against the legal authority of the Constitution, but they had not entered into any Agreement with a foreign Power (Article I Section 6) to levy War against the United States (Article III Section 3).

Article II Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article III Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article IV Section 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

The traditional argument that the South was invaded by the North is not to be summarily dismissed as a matter of Constitutional law. The acts of rebellion (hence, the name given to the Congressional Record of the Civil War) - the seizure of Federal property from Customs Houses, Independent Treasuries and Federal armories - all occurred within the boundaries of the Confederate States. The advance of McDowell's army into Prince William County was precisely the circumstance under which a State had the right to engage in War without Congress' approval (Article I Section 10.) The legal authority for the U.S. Army to march anywhere in the United States was questionable in the absence of a formal Declaration of War; and Congress, being full of lawyers, was careful never ever to declare actual war against the Confederacy. When Lincoln arrives in Washington and calls out the militia under Proclamation 80 on April 15, 1861, he does not claim that he has the authority to send the U.S. Army into Virginia. He only asserts the right to defend and reclaim Federal property: "The first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union." He does not mention a second "service".

Proclamation 80—Calling Forth the Militia and Convening an Extra Session of Congress | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

Lincoln's Proclamation initiating the blockade is equally circumspect; he does not claim any Presidential authority to have the U.S. Army or Navy physically invade a State.

Proclamation 81—Declaring a Blockade of Ports in Rebellious States | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

When Congress does convene in its Special Session on the 4th of July, it only ratifies the actions Lincoln has taken under the Militia Act of 1795 - i.e. "That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the state, or states, most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia, as he shall think proper."

 

[unionblue]

The aims were pretty basic, secure the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the confederacy. Also to uphold and defend the CS constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic.

You and others keep forgetting some other, pretty basic aims.

Protect and expand slavery by enshrining it in the Confederate Constitution.

Do not institute a Confederate Supreme Court for fear it will rule against Confederate policies and laws.

Complain about a US Tariff and then institute a Confederate Tariff.

Institute a tax-in-kind on Confederate population.

Institute a Passport system in order for all of the South's population to be able to travel from one place to another and ride the railroads and institute such without the vote or input of ordinary Confederate civilians.

Yep, lots of stuff left out there.

 

[TSJ]

Yeah, what makes Yankees so obnoxious is that they thought they had the right to tell everybody how to behave while ignoring their own rampant bigotry.
"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 Hil

I obviously wasn't living during the CW. But Hill's statement is definitely true for today.

 

[unionblue]

I obviously wasn't living during the CW. But Hill's statement is definitely true for today.

Hill's statement is merely diversion for today and a smokescreen for actual Civil War history.

It is mainly put forth when facts cannot be refuted with myth.

This isn't about "Yankees" or "Rebels" anymore. It's about actual history versus feeling good about one's ancestors.

 

[leftyhunter]

We must keep in mind that the Confederates did not want to take over the U.S. The Confederates simply wanted to leave the U.S. and then peacefully coexist with the U.S. In contrast, the Unionists wanted to destroy the Confederacy and force the Confederate states to rejoin the Union.

The Confedracy had a funny way of showing peace by attempting to seize the American SouthWest plus Kentucky, Missiouri and Maryland.
Leftyhunter

 

[CSA Today]

I obviously wasn't living during the CW. But Hill's statement is definitely true for today.

Today more than ever.

"If we lose this war, these people will be telling us how to live for the next 500 years."
Gen. Patrick Cleburne

 

[OpnCoronet]

I wouldn't agree with the "peculiar and unique way of life". There way of life had been the norm. Maybe the South was lagging a bit. Mechanization would've changed the slave system dramatically. Should Lincoln have tried other means to solve the issue? The mechanical cotton picker was already invented just not mass produced. Perhaps it was more of a Northern issue than we realize.

Certainly as far as southern society and its govt were concerned, they were reactionary in nature.

The goals I noted in my post, may have been good or even noble, except they were goals that did not take note of the rest of the world. That they chose to trample upon the rights of the peoples and states of the Union to achieve their goals or that their independence was to be based and maintained upon the theory that a truly democratic govt and peoples could be maintained by a thoroughly undemocratic institution.

 

[beverett]

I believe the patent was earlier than that, (1839 or 1849?) but proved to be unworkable.

So, you are of the opinion the President of the United States should come up with a better design for a cotton picker? I do know he did have a patent already on file for something to do with boats on the river or some such, but don't you think it a bit of a stretch to hold Lincoln responsible for cotton picking machine improvements?

Too bad that slaveholders didn't push for such developments in the picking of their cotton, but then, they already had a tried and true (and cheap) method for picking their cotton, didn't they?

Unionblue

My opinion is the President of the US has the power to cause folks to come together and reach solutions. SC secession potentially caused a hasty reaction. Agreed...slaveholders were complacent with the system. More reason for someone to intervene and cause action other than war. I'm competitive and like a good fight "ever so often"....a lot of future Americans never were.........................

 

[unionblue]

Today more than ever.

"If we lose this war, these people will be telling us how to live for the next 500 years."
Gen. Patrick Cleburne

"So we'll deny the very reason we went to war for, slavery."

"Hey, who knows? It might even work, if we deny everything we ever said."

 

[unionblue]

My opinion is the President of the US has the power to cause folks to come together and reach solutions. SC secession potentially caused a hasty reaction. Agreed...slaveholders were complacent with the system. More reason for someone to intervene and cause action other than war. I'm competitive and like a good fight "ever so often"....a lot of future Americans never were.........................

Yes, the President has all the power to cause a lot of things, IF the people support him, the Congress allows him, and the Supreme Court agrees with him.

 

[Potomac Pride]

You and others keep forgetting some other, pretty basic aims.

Protect and expand slavery by enshrining it in the Confederate Constitution.

Do not institute a Confederate Supreme Court for fear it will rule against Confederate policies and laws.

Complain about a US Tariff and then institute a Confederate Tariff.

Institute a tax-in-kind on Confederate population.

Institute a Passport system in order for all of the South's population to be able to travel from one place to another and ride the railroads and institute such without the vote or input of ordinary Confederate civilians.

Yep, lots of stuff left out there.

The Confederacy did have tariffs in order to raise revenue which was common for governments to have at that time. Revenue tariffs have small individual costs and do not appreciably affect the cost of imported goods to the consumer. They were considered a normal part of doing business with another country. Protective tariffs, on the other hand, are designed to raise the price of imported goods in order to encourage the purchase of comparable domestic products. High protective tariffs tend to support domestic production, but they also hurt trade and are thus opposed by traders in the import-export business. High tariffs tend to stifle trade in general since they are often reciprocated by other countries. The Confederate Constitution did not permit protective tariffs because they advocated a free trade policy. The economy of the Confederacy depended on the export of their agricultural goods to other nations and they opposed any barriers which impeded free trade. The south was opposed to the protective tariff system of the U.S. since it hindered foreign trade which their economy depended on.

 

[unionblue]

A free trade policy?

With a tariff on exports as well as imports?

What was the export tariff on cotton for? Was there an import tariff on Confederate cotton?

And I inquire, if the Confederate tariff was for free trade, why the destruction of cotton so it would NOT be available for export to England and France?

And why were British counsels in the Confederacy expelled?

 

[edfranksphd]

Well that's an accurate statement. But I would still not compare chattel slavery with so-called northern "wage slavery." The differences were too great to draw any reasonable analogy between them. Moreover, the conditions that prevailed for northern workers were not at all consistent, ranging from skilled laborers and mechanics who could command greater flexibility in their working environments, to unskilled workers who at least had the option of changing their circumstances, one of the factors that played a role in the large emigration of persons westward during the 1850's.

I didn't invent the analogy to Northern wage slavery; the credit for that goes to Robert Fogel, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1993 for his life's work which was devoted to the econometric analysis of the Southern economy, both comparative with the North's, and longitudinal, from inception in the Western Hemisphere.

 

[edfranksphd]

@beverett ,

It was a "peculiar and unique way of life" to the outsiders who toured the slaveholding South, both from up North and from other countries. Reading some of their accounts is quite an eye-opener.

What other means should Lincoln have tried? He and members of the Republican Party stated they had no intention, nor right, even under the Constitution, to interfere with slavery where it already existed. Southern slaveholders were given 3/5ths of extra votes for each of their slaves, giving the South political power in the US government all out of proportion with the number of white voters. Lincoln had won a free and fair election. Should he have went back on his party's platform and promise to the voters to keep slavery out of the federal territories simply because he HAD won the election?

You might also want to check on whether the mechanical cotton picker "was already invented" in 1860. It is my own understanding from other member's posts here that the first truly mechanical cotton picker was not produced and in use until the mid-20th century.

Slavery was the issue and that issue was firmly rooted in the slaveholding South.

Unionblue

PS: Found out about mechanical cotton pickers. Hat tip to @trice :

Rust Cotton Picker demonstrated in 1936.
International Harvester introduced the first commercially successful cotton picker in 1944.
Allis-Chalmers Company introduces their cotton picker after WWII.

ironically, many argue that it was the industrial revolution, in the form of Eli Whitney's cotton gin, the revived the cotton industry and thus the demand for slaves in the South post 1790. This may explain the increase in cotton production, but it is doubtful that slavery was entirely dependent on the viable of cotton. Much of South's slaves involved in growing many other crops (rice, sugar, tobacco, etc.) and other industries entirely (mining, manufacturing, and skilled labor). Owning slaves, whether for growing cotton, or for renting them out as local skilled laborers, seemed to be a way of doing biz against which the employers of wage laborers could not compete?

 

[jackt62]

I didn't invent the analogy to Northern wage slavery; the credit for that goes to Robert Fogel, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1993 for his life's work which was devoted to the econometric analysis of the Southern economy, both comparative with the North's, and longitudinal, from inception in the Western Hemisphere.

Didn't claim you invented that analogy. But although I am not an expert by any means on Robert Fogel, my understanding is that his work was mainly concerned with the economic arguments that might have been made to justify the system of chattel slavery, in contrast with the cost effectiveness of the economic system of free labor. His thesis has been the subject of much controversy and does not, in any case, equate the non-economic aspects of life under the 2 systems.

 

[unionblue]

ironically, many argue that it was the industrial revolution, in the form of Eli Whitney's cotton gin, the revived the cotton industry and thus the demand for slaves in the South post 1790. This may explain the increase in cotton production, but it is doubtful that slavery was entirely dependent on the viable of cotton. Much of South's slaves involved in growing many other crops (rice, sugar, tobacco, etc.) and other industries entirely (mining, manufacturing, and skilled labor). Owning slaves, whether for growing cotton, or for renting them out as local skilled laborers, seemed to be a way of doing biz against which the employers of wage laborers could not compete?

I agree the invention of the cotton gin revived slavery more than any other invention of the time.

I also agree that slavery was employed in other areas, especially the crops and industries you mention in your post above.

But what do you base your view that wage laborers could not compete with slaves? And if that asumption is true, why were not slaves employed in greater numbers in the North?

 

[unionblue]

ironically, many argue that it was the industrial revolution, in the form of Eli Whitney's cotton gin, the revived the cotton industry and thus the demand for slaves in the South post 1790. This may explain the increase in cotton production, but it is doubtful that slavery was entirely dependent on the viable of cotton. Much of South's slaves involved in growing many other crops (rice, sugar, tobacco, etc.) and other industries entirely (mining, manufacturing, and skilled labor). Owning slaves, whether for growing cotton, or for renting them out as local skilled laborers, seemed to be a way of doing biz against which the employers of wage laborers could not compete?

I agree the invention of the cotton gin revived slavery more than any other invention of the time.

I also agree that slavery was employed in other areas, especially the crops and industries you mention in your post above.

But what do you base your view that wage laborers could not compete with slaves? And if that assumption is true, why were not slaves employed in greater numbers in the North?

 

[LetUsHavePeace]

Cotton's economic importance to the United States was extraordinary. So was its amazing rate of growth, especially in the years when production moved west of the Appalachians. Here are the annual numbers in bales for the milestones. From 1790 to 1820 production increased 100-fold. Over the next 15 years (1820-1835) it grew 3-fold. Over the next 7 years, it doubled; and then less than two decades it more than doubled again.

1790 3,135
1815 208,986
1820 334,378
1835 1,000,000
1842 2,000,000
1860 4,500,000

But, its overall importance to the American export economy is consistently exaggerated in many of our discussions. By 1842 cotton was the largest single export; but it was only 36% of total U.S. exports. Coal, iron ore and petroleum were 32%, meat, lard and honey 14%, ships, machinery and building materials (lumber, iron plates, copper) were 14%, and foodstuffs 4%. "The South" was growing ever wealthier; but, after the Great Depression of 1837-1842/3, the rate of growth for its major output was no longer miraculous. It was not even keeping up with the railroads, which was where the smart money Southerners were placing their bets.
.