Confederate War Aims

[unionblue]

Thanks, but I got the talk from Dr. Robert Ramsay in graduate school.

I hope he was better than what I see posted.

 

[A. Roy]

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.

Glad you interjected this comment, which actually gets to the real question posed in the original post.

I've been studying fortifications, trying to understand their role in the war. From what I understand, the use of earthworks increased as the war continued, and armies began to understand the advantage they conferred, allowing an inferior force to fend off a superior foe. I understand that the works around Washington became quite formidable quickly, and would have presented a significant deterrent against a Confederate attack.

I recently read D.H. Mahan's standard mid-19th-century text "A Treatise on Field Fortification," and I was intrigued by something he says in his preface about the value of breastworks for a non-professional militia force:

"Called out on a particular emergency, with little or no previous exercise in the services they are required to render, militia cannot have that shoulder-to-shoulder courage, by which men are animated, who have served long together, which begets a reliance on each other, and a confidence in their chiefs, and which is one of the surest guarantees of victory. But place the militia soldier on his natural field of battle, behind a breastwork, and an equilibrium between him and his more disciplined enemy is immediately established; with a feeling of security in his position, his confidence in his own exertions is restored; with a full certainty that his enemy cannot close upon him, before he can retire beyond his reach, he does his duty coolly..."

Roy B.

 

[GwilymT]

Many nations throughout history have been conquered, that does not make it "right" or "just".

Very true, however I wouldn't classify the cause of the confederate rebellion, self expressed as a defense of slavery as belonging to either the "might" or the "right"... lol.

 

[19thGeorgia]

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.

Fort Sumter was not a federal district. It was still part of the territory of South Carolina and subject to the laws of that state.

 

[jackt62]

the use of earthworks increased as the war continued, and armies began to understand the advantage they conferred, allowing an inferior force to fend off a superior foe

Good examples of this are the battles of Shiloh and Antietam in 1862, of which both engagements (with the exception of making use of existing natural "entrenchments" such as the Sunken Roads in both locations), were essentially fought in open ground on both sides. Contrast this with the complex series of trenches and redoubts that were established along the Petersburg lines in the later part of 1864.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Fort Sumter was not a federal district. It was still part of the territory of South Carolina and subject to the laws of that state.

It was Federal Property, over with total sovereignty resting in the Congress of the United States of America..

 

[19thGeorgia]

It was Federal Property, over with total sovereignty resting in the Congress of the United States of America..

Nope

 

[OpnCoronet]

Nope

Guess again,

 

[GwilymT]

Nope

Completely and absolutely absurd. By act of the South Carolina legislature, Ft. Sumpter was completely and wholly federal property:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st​, 1836​

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st​, 1836​

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

https://civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.html

 

[GwilymT]

Fort Sumter was not a federal district. It was still part of the territory of South Carolina and subject to the laws of that state.

The fact that the SC legislature enacted a law plainly stating that it ceded all claims to Sumpter in 1836 puts this favorite "Lost Cause" myth to rest.

 

[leftyhunter]

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.

Your opinion is based upon what specific statutory or case law?
Leftyhunter

 

[Old_Glory]

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?

It 's a great question. It depends on your perspective of the Confederates. If they are the aggressors, then it is terribly puzzling as to why they did not attack Washington D.C. If they are merely defenders, then it makes perfect sense. To me, they were defenders in the War and were focused on protecting what they had. The forts they attacked were in their territory, so it made sense. The Union North were the aggressors. If you see the War from that perspective, the lack of a move on Washington D.C. is easy to understand. It all depends on your perspective to determine how easy that question is to answer.

 

[leftyhunter]

It 's a great question. It depends on your perspective of the Confederates. If they are the aggressors, then it is terribly puzzling as to why they did not attack Washington D.C. If they are merely defenders, then it makes perfect sense. To me, they were defenders in the War and were focused on protecting what they had. The forts they attacked were in their territory, so it made sense. The Union North were the aggressors. If you see the War from that perspective, the lack of a move on Washington D.C. is easy to understand. It all depends on your perspective to determine how easy that question is to answer.

General Beauregard put it best after the battle of 1st Bull Run on why he didn't persue the defeated Yankee's " an army is as disorganized in defeat as it is in victory".
By the time the Confedrate forces were reorganized Union reinforcements had arrived and fortified Washington DC. The Confedrate Army was on the offensive in Kentucky, Maryland , the New Mexico Territory and was going to invade Missiouri but for a spoiling attack at the battle of Pea Ridge. Incompetence in conducting offensive operations does not indicate a desire of peace and love.
Leftyhunter

 

[19thGeorgia]

It was Federal Property, over with total sovereignty resting in the Congress of the United States of America..

Completely and absolutely absurd. By act of the South Carolina legislature, Ft. Sumpter was completely and wholly federal property:....
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"who may be implicated by law"

What law? South Carolina law.

The US did not have total sovereignty. And Fort Sumter was still within the territory of South Carolina.

 

[GwilymT]

"who may be implicated by law"

What law? South Carolina law.

The US did not have total sovereignty. And Fort Sumter was still within the territory of South Carolina.

Actually not, but it's a nice fantasy. That clause is simply stating that people on the land are subject to state laws, not that the property is that of South Carolina. It's pretty much the same as soldiers living on a base in NY or TX or SC are still subject to the laws of the state but not that the property on which they reside belongs to the state.

Can you point me to a law that SC passed stating that Sumpter was again state property or an actual law passed stating that it was illegally inhabited (even though such law, if it indeed exists, in the latter case would have been passed by an illegal rebel legislature, not a recognized government).

 

[jackt62]

they were defenders in the War and were focused on protecting what they had

That needs to be examined in greater detail. The Confederacy's definition of "what they had" was not limited to the 11 states that seceded from the Union. Missouri and Kentucky were granted representation in the Confederate Congress, although both states remained loyal. Furthermore, to cement its grip, the Confederacy attempted offensive operations in those states throughout the war years. Additionally, the Confederacy laid claim to portions of American territories, particularly in the areas constituting New Mexico and Arizona, and for which, again, offensive operations were conducted. And lastly, the Confederacy, in enlisting the support of several of the Native American nations, claimed sovereignty over a portion of Indian Territory (Oklahoma). So the Confederacy's attempts to expand its reach beyond the areas it already controlled may have been considered "defensive" but that does require a stretch of the imagination.

 

[unionblue]

Fort Sumter was not a federal district. It was still part of the territory of South Carolina and subject to the laws of that state.

"who may be implicated by law"

What law? South Carolina law.

The US did not have total sovereignty. And Fort Sumter was still within the territory of South Carolina.

Completely and absolutely absurd. By act of the South Carolina legislature, Ft. Sumpter was completely and wholly federal property:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st​, 1836​

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st​, 1836​

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

https://civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.html

@19thGeorgia ,

Sorry, but you and others here are going to have to choke down some historical fact.

Fort Sumter was not a part of South Carolina, even according to South Carolina. Now, while South Carolina may have come to regret that historical fact, nothing changed that fact, even after South Carolina seceded, and it still remained federal territory under control of the United States.

Now, if you want to go along with historical fact, than you should admit to yourself the obvious. In the end, South Carolina didn't care about the law or any legal aspect of ownership when it came to Fort Sumter. They simply decided to use force to take it because it was an embarrassment to have this bit of federal territory so close to them.

In other words, as other seceding, slaveholding states had done in the run-up to Lincoln's election, they STOLE the fort and any other federal property they wanted to and made no reference or excuse with the law in doing such theft.

"And the truth shall set you free."

Unionblue

 

[Old_Glory]

That needs to be examined in greater detail. The Confederacy's definition of "what they had" was not limited to the 11 states that seceded from the Union. Missouri and Kentucky were granted representation in the Confederate Congress, although both states remained loyal. Furthermore, to cement its grip, the Confederacy attempted offensive operations in those states throughout the war years. Additionally, the Confederacy laid claim to portions of American territories, particularly in the areas constituting New Mexico and Arizona, and for which, again, offensive operations were conducted. And lastly, the Confederacy, in enlisting the support of several of the Native American nations, claimed sovereignty over a portion of Indian Territory (Oklahoma). So the Confederacy's attempts to expand its reach beyond the areas it already controlled may have been considered "defensive" but that does require a stretch of the imagination.

But compared to the Union North's advances, the Confederate offensive operations seem extremely minimal at best. Some advances are understandable while on defense.

 

[jackt62]

But compared to the Union North's advances, the Confederate offensive operations seem extremely minimal at best. Some advances are understandable while on defense.

To end the rebellion and win the war, the North had to affirmatively advance through the Southland and destroy Confederate armies. To be sure, the Confederate offensive operations I noted were by comparison minimal, but their aims were strikingly different from those of the Union.

 

[OpnCoronet]

"who may be implicated by law"

What law? South Carolina law.

The US did not have total sovereignty. And Fort Sumter was still within the territory of South Carolina.

On the subject of ownership of Ft. Sumter, Pres. Buchanan , received a formal request from the state of SC requesting Ft. Sumter and all Federal property in SC be relinquished.

Buchanan turned the request over to his Secy of War for a formal reply of the United States. The Secys reply says all that needs to be said concerning ownership of Ft. Sumter.

People who really want to know who owned Ft. Sumter(and Why) should read the Secy of War reply. It is quite detailed as to Law and History.