Did Jefferson Davis Just Lose the War?

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
Think of being a nation has part of being a club. You.r not a member of the club unless other members say your a member...

Whatever happens as a member or not in a club (a cheesy comparison imho, friend!) you're a citizen of a Nation merely by embuing the requirements of citizenship for that Nation. That's by default, not by what any other citizen says you are.

If you must have such a strained comparison think of a nation as more of a donut-of-the-month club (you belong or you don't) than a bridge club (you belong if they want you to belong).

Anyway, unless there's some significantly consequential difference between self-identifying as a Nation or being externally-identified as a Nation, this is getting to be quite the silly rabbit hole.

You've established that you're a good person for advocating on the side of legitimacy in nationhood. Let's move on with the topic of the OP.
 
Last edited:

farmerjohn

Private
Joined
Oct 30, 2019
It has always seemed to me that the problem with evaluating Johnston is that he is always evaluated in comparison with Lee. I would not be surprised if almost anyone on this forum first heard the two names in conjunction with the other. Johnston was falling back on Richmond, was wounded and replaced by Lee who proceeded to furiously assault and assail McClelland until he turned tail and abandoned any attempt to take the city.

The difference between Johnston's falling back on Atlanta and Lee's headlong offenses against McClelland lay in the simple fact that Lee knew without a shadow of a doubt that once McClelland advanced just a few more miles he would have been in a position to begin siege operations after which the fall of Richmond and the end of the Confederacy could have been calculated with mathematical precision.

Johnston on the other hand, knew that the fall of Atlanta did not mean the end of the war. With the AoT still almost entirely intact, what could Sherman have done. His supply line would have remained in constant jeopardy. Head toward Savannah as he in fact did, not likely. With almost no opposition between Atlanta and the sea, he barely made it. His men were starving and in rags when they actually reached the coast and only resupply from the Navy rescued him. Nor could he have spread his army into 3 widely separated columns to pillage and forage.

An intact AoT could have put a force in front of him to block every crossroad and every river crossing/bridge. Sherman would have constantly have had to concentrate his force to break through even if resistance evaporated at the first hint of assault--the object not being to stop but to slow him.

I did not realize this until a few years ago, but Sherman did not simply live of the land as is commonly understood. He left Atlanta with a herd of over 5000 cattle. Even after the disaster of Tupelo, do you think it fairly likely that Johnston probably would have summon even a diminished Forrest to harass Sherman

Say what you will about Johnston as a strategist or tactician, I think almost anyone would allow him to be at least a competent military man. There was a brief reference to his being relieved by Hood after having planned Peachtree Creek, but Hood being the one to carry it out. The contrast is stunning. Hood by all accounts was not even within earshot of the battle and once he gave to order to start had nothing more to do with the affair. Do you really believe Johnston would have been so cavalier. For once Sherman made a palpable blunder. He had one wing of his army separated by water where it could be attacked and either destroyed or forced to surrender. If that had occurred there is no way that the rest of the Atlanta campaign could have proceeded in a similar manner.

But how did Johnston's opponents view him. Grant from the quote offered seemed to think highly of him. But what about Sherman? How do you think he would have evaluated his opponent? How would he have rated the general who gave him such a crushing defeat at Kennesaw Mt. not to mention the same man who came close to duplicating the event at Bentonville six months later. (And then with a rag tag army that shouldn't have been able to frighten a bunch of Girl Scouts.)

Now if you really want a Southerner to point a finger at and blame for the South's defeat. Point it at the midwife who having delivered Braxton Bragg, did not immediately perform the first post-birth abortion.
ive been sayin that about bragg for awhile on here. always get the, ' oh he's not that bad[bragg] every single time.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Marriage has been referred to as a UNION between a man and a women
Who are citizens of independent states, and thereby subject to the laws thereof.

That's not the case with independent states themselves; and therefore unions between such, are not subject to any outside laws (or inferences based thereon) to negate their respective independence, to unite as a singular new independent state.

Rather, only express assertions of such action and intention by the independent states themselves, can do this.

Accordingly, independent states do not lose their sovereign independence to conjoin as larger independent states, simply by failing to expressly retain it in international compacts.

On the contrary, they must expressly manifest an intention to relinquish their independence to another state— whether joining to become part of an existing nation-state, or uniting to form a new independent nation- state; as noted in Blackstone’s influential Commentaries, that in the case of a nonconfederate, “incorporate union” such as the 1707 union of England and Scotland, no rescission option existed:

“The two contracting states are totally annihilated [qua sovereign states], without any power of revival; and a third arises from their conjunction, in which all the rights of sovereignty … must necessarily reside.”

However the precise wording in that 1707 document that united England and Scotland into the single nation of Great Britain, expressly manifested this intention. To wit:

"That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May next ensuing the Date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great-Britain, and that the Ensigns Armorial of the said united Kingdom, be such as her Majesty shall appoint; and the Crosses of St. Andrew and St. George be conjoined in such a manner as her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards, and Ensigns, both at Sea and Land."

This is because such national union, can only be expressly manifested by the nations themselves.

It can never be inferred by outside interpretation; for the obvious reason that sovereign nations are their own final authority, and hence any outside inference would be inherently void.

And this new “one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain,” was the very kingdom from which the Founders seceded; and therefore they would naturally be the first to know the difference between national vs. international compacts.

In contrast, neither the Constitution, or any other American founding document, ever likewise expressly manifests uniting the individual independent sovereign states together, to create a single new independent nation-state, to which they would become dependent states.

Rather, the Constitution is an international compact, just as with the UN or the EU, or indeed the Articles of Confederation.

The main difference is that it is established by the respective people of each independent state, who were thus established as the supreme final authority therein; and they simply delegated various powers to state and federal governments, as detailed in the body of the Constitution.
 

Stiles/Akin

Sergeant Major
Joined
Apr 1, 2016
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
It could arguably be said that Jefferson Davis' relief of General Joe Johnston on July 17, 1864 in front of Atlanta might have caused the Confederacy to lose whatever slight chances it still had of achieving some kind of victory over the Union. Here's why: Davis was exasperated by Johnston's continual withdrawal of the AOT from Dalton to Atlanta and received no assurance from Johnston that he was prepared to defend the city or make a determined stand against Sherman's combined forces. Even though Johnston had prepared to attack the Army of the Cumberland at Peachtree Creek, the assault was carried out by Johnson's replacement, General John Bell Hood. But Hood's assault, as well as his subsequent attacks against Sherman's forces (Atlanta, Ezra Church) all failed to halt Sherman's eventual capture of Atlanta. In the aftermath of Atlanta's fall, after a brief pursuit of Hood, Sherman marched off in the other direction towards the sea while the diminished AOT went off on a wild goose chase to its final decimation in Tennessee.

But to get back to my main point. Based on his past record, if Johnston had remained in command he would have likely given up Atlanta without incurring the type of significant casualties that resulted from Hood's attempts to safeguard the city and/or harm Sherman's forces. In that case, Johnston and the AOT would have remained a formidable fighting force that could either have continued to stymie and bedevil Sherman through, say Georgia, and more important, have made a serious effort to link up with Lee's forces at Petersburg. In that scenario, the additional manpower brought to bear might have made a real difference to the Confederacy in stengthening the Petersburg siege lines.

So while Davis pinned his hopes on Hood's aggressive strategy, it not only failed to save Atlanta, but it took away the only source of additional manpower that might have made a difference where it really mattered. In that respect, did Jeff Davis lose the war by replacing Johnston with Hood?
I like this. I believe the whole event was politically driven. There is a small booklet on this topic at Kennesaw Mountain and I am going to find a copy and share at some point.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say Jefferson Davis was the leader of a secessionist movement but not a country has no nation recognized the Confederacy has a nation.
Each state was free, sovereign and independent by right of revolution against Great Britain, as recognized since 1783 at the latest.
This meant they each had the right to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all the other things that free and independent states may of right do.

Any union between them, was purely international among independent states; just like the UN or the EU.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Playing Constitutional Lawyer is fun, we've done it here several times. But of course the history and precedents of the legal relationship between Federal and State have been more complicated and contested than can be summarily constructed into three "facts" and a postscript. It takes a real Constitutional Lawyer to unravel it.
There's been no comity on the efficacy (the working details) of that relationship even today, to read the papers.
The Constitution reads "we the people," not "we the Constitutional Lawyers."

Therefore their arguments are subject to final discretion of the independent state's people; who are the supreme power therein, due to their being the state's ratifying authority regarding the Constitution.

So the Constitution means, ultimately, whatever the state's people say it means.

Not "Constitutional Lawyers;" they are only consultants at most.
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
The Constitution reads "we the people," not "we the Constitutional Lawyers."

Therefore their arguments are subject to final discretion of the independent state's people; who are the supreme power therein, due to their being the state's ratifying authority regarding the Constitution.

So the Constitution means, ultimately, whatever the state's people say it means.

Not "Constitutional Lawyers;" they are only consultants at most.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for the country, or independent state, of the United States of America. It was not established by the states or by the people of the state of Virginia, or New York, but by the whole people of the United States.

When the people of the United States established the constitution they made it the supreme law of the land. A treaty from 1707 or Black's commentaries, or any other international law, has no bearing on the constitution. The only thing that matters is what the constitution says and the laws passed in accordance with it, and Supreme Court decisions bearing on it.
 

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Who are citizens of independent states, and thereby subject to the laws thereof.

That's not the case with independent states themselves; and therefore unions between such, are not subject to any outside laws (or inferences based thereon) to negate their respective independence, to unite as a singular new independent state.

Rather, only express assertions of such action and intention by the independent states themselves, can do this.

Accordingly, independent states do not lose their sovereign independence to conjoin as larger independent states, simply by failing to expressly retain it in international compacts.

On the contrary, they must expressly manifest an intention to relinquish their independence to another state— whether joining to become part of an existing nation-state, or uniting to form a new independent nation- state; as noted in Blackstone’s influential Commentaries, that in the case of a nonconfederate, “incorporate union” such as the 1707 union of England and Scotland, no rescission option existed:

“The two contracting states are totally annihilated [qua sovereign states], without any power of revival; and a third arises from their conjunction, in which all the rights of sovereignty … must necessarily reside.”

However the precise wording in that 1707 document that united England and Scotland into the single nation of Great Britain, expressly manifested this intention. To wit:

"That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May next ensuing the Date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great-Britain, and that the Ensigns Armorial of the said united Kingdom, be such as her Majesty shall appoint; and the Crosses of St. Andrew and St. George be conjoined in such a manner as her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards, and Ensigns, both at Sea and Land."

This is because such national union, can only be expressly manifested by the nations themselves.

It can never be inferred by outside interpretation; for the obvious reason that sovereign nations are their own final authority, and hence any outside inference would be inherently void.

And this new “one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain,” was the very kingdom from which the Founders seceded; and therefore they would naturally be the first to know the difference between national vs. international compacts.

In contrast, neither the Constitution, or any other American founding document, ever likewise expressly manifests uniting the individual independent sovereign states together, to create a single new independent nation-state, to which they would become dependent states.

Rather, the Constitution is an international compact, just as with the UN or the EU, or indeed the Articles of Confederation.

The main difference is that it is established by the respective people of each independent state, who were thus established as the supreme final authority therein; and they simply delegated various powers to state and federal governments, as detailed in the body of the Constitution.
Let us speculate that the Confederacy were legally right and that they did achieve their goal of succession,.Create a novel of the South and North today ,what would these two seperate countries have in political and social relations.?Then there is the Western section that may have desired to be seperate ,The the rich Eastern section,with its own history of desire to leave the Union {War of 1812}.Those who predicted that the Union of the States would not survive and democracy was a fantasy of philosophers .would have been right.As the war progressed the Confederacy government became more central control ,the same reasons which the STATES had departed the UNION .Slavery may have continued and spread ,with the population of slaves increasing along with the horror of a Nate Turner or Hatti rising.thus causing a demand for central control of that population .The states/central government would turn more militant towards the black .Restrictions on movement of slaves .would monitor any possibility of rebellion Conquest of Mexico and the islands would be necessary as the expansion of the slave population would make this neccessary .A established border along North ,South ,and West would be manned to avoid slaves escaping into these regions/a WALL of the length of the Wall of China] , You may continue or write a more ideal Confederacy for yours.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Each state was free, sovereign and independent by right of revolution against Great Britain, as recognized since 1783 at the latest.
This meant they each had the right to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all the other things that free and independent states may of right do.

Any union between them, was purely international among independent states; just like the UN or the EU.
Again not per the majority public opinion of those who lived in the United States nor any US Court decision not any other nations on earth.
Leftyhunter
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Who are citizens of independent states, and thereby subject to the laws thereof.

That's not the case with independent states themselves; and therefore unions between such, are not subject to any outside laws (or inferences based thereon) to negate their respective independence, to unite as a singular new independent state.

Rather, only express assertions of such action and intention by the independent states themselves, can do this.

Accordingly, independent states do not lose their sovereign independence to conjoin as larger independent states, simply by failing to expressly retain it in international compacts.

On the contrary, they must expressly manifest an intention to relinquish their independence to another state— whether joining to become part of an existing nation-state, or uniting to form a new independent nation- state; as noted in Blackstone’s influential Commentaries, that in the case of a nonconfederate, “incorporate union” such as the 1707 union of England and Scotland, no rescission option existed:

“The two contracting states are totally annihilated [qua sovereign states], without any power of revival; and a third arises from their conjunction, in which all the rights of sovereignty … must necessarily reside.”

However the precise wording in that 1707 document that united England and Scotland into the single nation of Great Britain, expressly manifested this intention. To wit:

"That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May next ensuing the Date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great-Britain, and that the Ensigns Armorial of the said united Kingdom, be such as her Majesty shall appoint; and the Crosses of St. Andrew and St. George be conjoined in such a manner as her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards, and Ensigns, both at Sea and Land."

This is because such national union, can only be expressly manifested by the nations themselves.

It can never be inferred by outside interpretation; for the obvious reason that sovereign nations are their own final authority, and hence any outside inference would be inherently void.

And this new “one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain,” was the very kingdom from which the Founders seceded; and therefore they would naturally be the first to know the difference between national vs. international compacts.

In contrast, neither the Constitution, or any other American founding document, ever likewise expressly manifests uniting the individual independent sovereign states together, to create a single new independent nation-state, to which they would become dependent states.

Rather, the Constitution is an international compact, just as with the UN or the EU, or indeed the Articles of Confederation.

The main difference is that it is established by the respective people of each independent state, who were thus established as the supreme final authority therein; and they simply delegated various powers to state and federal governments, as detailed in the body of the Constitution.
Each state was free, sovereign and independent by right of revolution against Great Britain, as recognized since 1783 at the latest.
This meant they each had the right to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all the other things that free and independent states may of right do.

Any union between them, was purely international among independent states; just like the UN or the EU.
The Constitution reads "we the people," not "we the Constitutional Lawyers."

Therefore their arguments are subject to final discretion of the independent state's people; who are the supreme power therein, due to their being the state's ratifying authority regarding the Constitution.

So the Constitution means, ultimately, whatever the state's people say it means.

Not "Constitutional Lawyers;" they are only consultants at most.

Did Jefferson Davis just lose the war?
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
The Constitution reads "we the people," not "we the Constitutional Lawyers."

Therefore their arguments are subject to final discretion of the independent state's people; who are the supreme power therein, due to their being the state's ratifying authority regarding the Constitution.

So the Constitution means, ultimately, whatever the state's people say it means.

Not "Constitutional Lawyers;" they are only consultants at most.
One can get a California Bar Card with out being a US citizen or a resident of California . One doesn't even have to go to law school but one does have to pay to take the bar exam and pass it. When you do you can represent those who wish to secede from the US. Maybe you can get the Supreme Court to reverse Texas v.White.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for the country, or independent state, of the United States of America. It was not established by the states or by the people of the state of Virginia, or New York, but by the whole people of the United States.

When the people of the United States established the constitution they made it the supreme law of the land. A treaty from 1707 or Black's commentaries, or any other international law, has no bearing on the constitution. The only thing that matters is what the constitution says and the laws passed in accordance with it, and Supreme Court decisions bearing on it.

This was Daniel Webster's 1830 "Contract Theory" of union; but it was so vapid, that it was abandoned by the Jackson Administration, due to the following gaping flaws in the argument:

1. It concedes that the states were independent prior to the Constitution; which says nothing about any state's independence, and so it can't have altered such.

2. The people of each state, ratified the Constitution for their state only. Not in the aggregate.

3. As per Article VII, only 9 states or more were required to form the new union; and only between those ratifying states. So it could not have been among "the people in the aggregate."

4. The phrase "the people of the United States" is a semantic phrase pertaining to the peoples of the individual states that ratified the Constitution. It originally read:

"That the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia do ordain, declare and establish the following constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity."
It was amended, not for the purpose of submitting the constitution to the people in the aggregate (which didn't happen); but because the convention could not tell, in advance, which States would ratify it.
So it's pure semantic phrasing; a red herring that is spun out of context by the ignorant to support their narrative.


Due to the obvious flaws in Webster's Contract theory the Jackson Administration concocted a different false history,via the claim that the states seceded from Great Britain as a single independent state, and that 1776 simply marked the point at which the states/colonies changed their dependence from Great Britain, to the "Union" as a single independent state, upon which the individual states were now independent.

Which is also clearly false.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
One can get a California Bar Card with out being a US citizen or a resident of California . One doesn't even have to go to law school but one does have to pay to take the bar exam and pass it. When you do you can represent those who wish to secede from the US. Maybe you can get the Supreme Court to reverse Texas v.White.
Leftyhunter
1. The Supreme Court has no power over independent states; and
2. each American state is independent, just like any other independent state worldwide.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
1. The Supreme Court has no power over independent states; and
2. each American state is independent, just like any other independent state worldwide.

1. Someone better phone the states and let them know they can ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court. I'd like to get their views on that concept.

2. The states should also be made aware that they need to appoint ambassadors to every nation in the world and see if there is any federal money available to help them do so.

3. Davis did lose the war.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
1. Someone better phone the states and let them know they can ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court. I'd like to get their views on that concept.

2. The states should also be made aware that they need to appoint ambassadors to every nation in the world and see if there is any federal money available to help them do so.

3. Davis did lose the war.

1. The people of a state can, being the supreme power over their own independent state.

2. See above. All laws are subject to the supreme authority of the independent state, which in the American states is the people of the respective state.

3. It doesn't work that way.
No state's independence was expressly changed, and so they remain separate independent states under the supreme power of their respective people.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
1. The people of a state can.

2. See above. All laws are subject to the supreme authority of the independent state, which in the American states is the people of the respective state.

3. It wasn't a civil war.

1. Any idea on when the people are going to do such for ALL of the US Supreme Courts rulings?

2. See above. Need a timeline.

3. Yes, it was a civil war and Jefferson Davis lost it.
 
Top