Did a Basic Lack of a 2 or More Party System Help or Hurt The CSA?

Specster

Sergeant Major
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
2,025
Location
Mass.
Correct me if I am wrong but didnt the CSA basically have a 1 political party system which led them clear of the intrigue of the Union's Republican/Democrat debacles throughout the war? Often, the motives of (especially), the AOP had to be called into questions given the political leanings of the Generals in the those army's. IMO the South did not have the same, extremely costly problem....
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,165
Correct me if I am wrong but didnt the CSA basically have a 1 political party system which led them clear of the intrigue of the Union's Republican/Democrat debacles throughout the war? Often, the motives of (especially), the AOP had to be called into questions given the political leanings of the Generals in the those army's. IMO the South did not have the same, extremely costly problem....
The Whig Party had existed as a second party in the south prior to the rebellion. Though fewer in numbers, its adherents did provide an alternative voice.
Having one party during the rebellion may have helped provide consistent leadership, though a determination to protect the 'peculiar institution' and a new-found sense of nationalism overode any effort to form an opposition party.
Did that aid the rebel effort? Possibly.
Did the existence of a two party system in the states that remained in the Union help or hinder the military effort? Not so much- at least early on. More troublesome was the anti-war faction, many of whom were Democrats. Fortunately, the Administration took pains to assure inclusion of pro-Union Democrats, so that opposition was minimized.
A greater problem within the Army was that so many high officers were politicians- of whatever party- and, except for some notable exceptions, ill suited to military command.
 

Hawkeye Brehm

Sergeant
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
788
Location
Myrtle Beach, SC
One perspective would be the problems each state had with the CSA Government. Take Joseph Emerson Brown for example. He held on to as many units as he could before he released them to the CSA Government. There were Unionists in the South too so having another voice was difficult to say the least.
Joseph E. Brown pretty much embodied the reason why state's rights was a bad idea, in my opinion.
 

Hawkeye Brehm

Sergeant
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
788
Location
Myrtle Beach, SC
???

Absolutely, but without 2 parties spelled out in a codified system, where one can get a majority by having 2/3s of the votes, I think we are talking apples and oranges
Depends on how deeply divided the single party of the single party system is. When you have two candidates of the same party who represent different ends of the political spectrum (conservative vs liberal), the candidate representing one form of ideologies can have a markedly different impact than the other, and therefore move the needle in a given direction compared to the other. One candidate can still get a majority of the votes within a single party system.
 

Specster

Sergeant Major
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
2,025
Location
Mass.
The Whig Party had existed as a second party in the south prior to the rebellion. Though fewer in numbers, its adherents did provide an alternative voice.
Having one party during the rebellion may have helped provide consistent leadership, though a determination to protect the 'peculiar institution' and a new-found sense of nationalism overode any effort to form an opposition party.
Did that aid the rebel effort? possibly.
Did the existence of a two party system in the states that remained in the Union help or hinder the military effort? Not so much- at least early on. More troublesome was the anti-war faction, many of whom were Democrats. Fortunately, the Administration took pains to assure inclusion of pro-Union Democrats, so that opposition was minimized.
A greater problem within the Army was that so many high officers were politicians- of whatever party- and, except for some notable exceptions, ill suited to military command.

There is no disconnect here - that is my point - The South did have to deal with Lee, who headed the anti administration party....it was (this is basically the question I am asking) one big happy family (or am I wrong during the war)?. We did not have Lee dismissed from the CSA only to run against Davis 2 years down the road. Again - I think we are on the same page
 

Specster

Sergeant Major
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
2,025
Location
Mass.
Depends on how deeply divided the single party of the single party system is. When you have two candidates of the same party who represent different ends of the political spectrum (conservative vs liberal), the candidate representing one form of ideologies can have a markedly different impact than the other, and therefore move the needle in a given direction compared to the other. One candidate can still get a majority of the votes within a single party system.

Am I wrong or did that needle never move away from the way Davis, and the General thought - I never thought there was conflict there. I dont know what came first - lets say Davis was the chicken and the Generals were the egg. As far as I can see it is a question of semantics - whereas in the North, you had red line political affiliations - sometimes to dire consequences
 

Specster

Sergeant Major
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
2,025
Location
Mass.
The Whig Party had existed as a second party in the south prior to the rebellion. Though fewer in numbers, its adherents did provide an alternative voice.
Having one party during the rebellion may have helped provide consistent leadership, though a determination to protect the 'peculiar institution' and a new-found sense of nationalism overode any effort to form an opposition party.
Did that aid the rebel effort? possibly.
Did the existence of a two party system in the states that remained in the Union help or hinder the military effort? Not so much- at least early on. More troublesome was the anti-war faction, many of whom were Democrats. Fortunately, the Administration took pains to assure inclusion of pro-Union Democrats, so that opposition was minimized.
A greater problem within the Army was that so many high officers were politicians- of whatever party- and, except for some notable exceptions, ill suited to military command.
I am losing you here, the point I am making is that bifurcation in the North - especially early on, cause a host of problems because both soldiers and civilians, IMO, thought McClallanites were fighting (or not fighting) for their own reasons....I would have to say it was more than "not so much". But then again that is why I am asking the question
 
Last edited:

Hawkeye Brehm

Sergeant
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
788
Location
Myrtle Beach, SC
Am I wrong or did that needle never move away from the way Davis, and the General thought - I never thought there was conflict there. I dont know what came first - lets say Davis was the chicken and the Generals were the egg. As far as I can see it is a question of semantics - whereas in the North, you had red line political affiliations - sometimes to dire consequences
The politics of the Confederacy were, by definition, different than those of the Union; different issues for different countries.

The politics of the Confederate generals (and governors) tended to lie with their respective states, hence my remark about Joseph E. Brown. Did they become as big an issue with the Confederate Army as the politics of the Union? No.

The Federal army, especially the Army of the Potomac, was heavily politicized, to the point that you had politicians attempting to make decisions in regards to the military dependent on a general's politics (Committee for the Conduct of the War).

There's your apples and oranges.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,165
There is no disconnect here - that is my point - The South did have to deal with Lee, who headed the anti administration party....it was (this is basically the question I am asking) one big happy family (or am I wrong during the war)?. We did not have Lee dismissed from the CSA only to run against Davis 2 years down the road. Again - I think we are on the same page
Thanks for your response.
The rebels were, indeed, fortunate that they found the 'right man for the job' early on. Though one has to wonder how things might have been had Joseph E. Johnston not been wounded....
As I understand it, Lee was a 'good soldier' when it came to dealing with the Davis Administration. Unlike some of the U. S. Generals, he did not criticize his Commander-in-chief in public. He always showed a respectful deference to Davis. I wouldn't characterize him as heading "the anti administration party". Rather I believe, to Davis, he was the ideal subordinate.
Only Grant reached that level of shared confidence with Lincoln.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,165
I am losing you here, the point I am making is that bifurcation in the North - especially early on, cause a host of problems because both soldiers and civilians, IMO, thought MacClulaites were fighting (or not fighting) for their own reasons....I would have to say it was more than "not so much". But then again that is why I am asking the question
Thanks for your response.
But how much of that was Republican versus Democrat?
And who are the "MacClulaites"?
 

Stiles/Akin

Sergeant Major
Joined
Apr 1, 2016
Messages
2,149
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
When we say 2 party do we mean Secession and Anti Secession or more like the Know Nothing Party? I mean some of this activity was going on way back before the war. Many Southerners fought politically to put down such ideas like General Wofford when he was owner of the Cassville Standard. Warren Akin and all of the representatives from Cass/Bartow county were against secession but went with the State when they voted.
 


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top