Did the Union or Confederacy Produce Better All-Around Soldiers?


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
321
Location
Sunny South
Although there is ample antebellum evidence that secession was unconstitutional and a post-war decision clearly establishing its illegality, there was enough uncertainty in 1860/61 to allow some to attempt secession. The Federal government did consider prosecuting Davis and others for treason but wisely chose not to.
Well, this is a topic I have tried to stay clear of but anyone researching the CW heavily will run across this. Secession was negotiated from day one in the history of this country, even the Declaration of Independence (1776), the Articles of Confederation (1777), the Constitution (1787) and many other discussions and compromises. There were many states, north and south that truly believed secession was an option any individual state could choose. The South believed this and my understanding is when Davis was imprisoned (or maybe earlier) Union higher ups got an opinion from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and he told them there was no way secession was considered treason and in fact suggested the invasion of the South was unconstitutional. Regardless of the exact facts or correct wording I should use here secession was clearly not unconstitutional. Any decision related to Texas of 10 or 15 years later has no relevance to 1861. The problem is we will never know because only the Supreme court tells us what the Constitution says on issues such as this and the Supreme court never had an opinion on secession of 1861. Lincoln handled it just as I hope I would have just to keep the Union together. I research and emphasize the heroism of both blue and gray on the battlefield and this war is full of examples of this. 85 to 90% of every single Rebel soldier not only never owned a slave, their father never owned a slave. They fought for many other reasons.
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,620
Location
Denmark
85 to 90% of every single Rebel soldier not only never owned a slave, their father never owned a slave. They fought for many other reasons.
You are very wrong. About 1/3 of all households in the states that where part of the CSA owned slaves. (in 1860)
(the exact % depend on what states we include in the math)

In South Carolina it was 57% of all households that owned one or more slaves.

This is well documented thanks to the 1860 census records.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
321
Location
Sunny South
The same type of irreverent, individualistic, recklessly courageous soldiers, when backed by the industrial power of the US, were unbeatable in pursuit of a just cause, 75 years later. There was nothing lacking in courage and fighting skill. But the US in the Civil War had unlimited gunboats, millions of bls of oats, tons of hay, horses, mules, and the railroads to support them. The outcome was pre-determined as soon as the managers like Grant, Sherman, and Thomas took over. The Confederates could not do much about Foote, Farragut, and S. Phillips Lee. David Porter was going to win.
I agree, I concluded the South was never going to win so long as Lincoln was willing to fight it out to the last man as he proved was his strategy. The blockade, which was put in place by Pres. Lincoln and Gen. Winfield Scott only weeks into the war, was a huge factor, too.
 
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
321
Location
Sunny South
You are very wrong. About But 1/3 of all households in the states that where part of the CSA owned slaves. (in 1860)
(the exact % depend on what states we include in the math)

This is well documented thanks to the 1860 census records.
That bogus study counted toddlers as "slave holding family". 5% of all free people in the South actually owned slaves. Then they start counting their children to get the number up to 15% to 25% or whatever the bogus number is. I tried to do the same study on 540 men and after several days realized that study is yet another bogus propaganda BS. There is no way they developed a computer program to determine those numbers. Absolutely no way. The number is 5% in all of the south. In Miss., La. or Va. the number may be up to 10% or 12% or whatever but that study added infants in a household or men sharing a rental unit with someone who's father owned a slave and that is absurdly bogus.
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,620
Location
Denmark
What is bogus is counting everyone.
Children didn't own anything.
Most women didn't own anything.
Young men, who where not the head of their family rarely owned anything. (other than a few personal items)

So if you ask: how many owned a pair of shoes, you would get a number that is a good deal lower than 50%.
(and you would get millions of men who owned dresses and other woman clothing, because legally the husband own everything)

That is why the census records deal with households in the first place.

Not counting this way show a complete lack of understanding on how 19th century family structure, laws and economy works.


SC had a total of 58,642 households.
And a total of 26,701 slave-owners.
That give you 46%

That 26 is a bit less then half of 58 is basic math. No need for a computer program for that
 
Last edited:

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,459
my understanding is when Davis was imprisoned (or maybe earlier) Union higher ups got an opinion from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and he told them there was no way secession was considered treason and in fact suggested the invasion of the South was unconstitutional.
Thanks for your response.
That is not accurate. However, since further discussion here would be off-topic, I suggest you start a new, separate thread to discuss this.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,459
the Supreme court never had an opinion on secession of 1861.
Thanks for your response.
No, but there were antebellum decisions on the underlying claims of state sovereignty and compact, principles asserted by the the secessionists to justify their actions. Again, further discussion here would be off-topic, so I suggest you start a new, separate thread to discuss this.
 
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
321
Location
Sunny South
What is bogus is counting everyone.
Children didn't own anything.
Most women didn't own anything.
Young men, who where not the head of their family rarely owned anything. (other than a few personal items)

So if you ask: how many owned a pair of shoes, you would get a number that is a good deal lower than 50%.
(and you would get millions of men who owned dresses and other woman clothing, because legally the husband own everything)

That is why the census records deal with households in the first place.

Not counting this way show a complete lack of understanding on how 19th century family structure, laws and economy works.


SC had a total of 58,642 households.
And a total of 26,701 slave-owners.
That give you 46%

That 26 is a bit less then half of 58 is basic math. No need for a computer program for that
No, that bogus chart says 26,701 people (including toddlers, wives, mothers, grandpa and grandma, etc.) lived in a household where one person in that household was a slaveholder. What this bogus researcher calls "families owning slaves". There were not 26,701 slaveholders in SC in 1860. All of this is a continuing effort to keep us all arguing and divided. These numbers are bogus. I am saying, after attempting to figure just 540 Rebels, you cannot determine such numbers without spending half a life time researching. Even the 26,701 figure is bogus Edited. They claimed they had a computer program to determine this and this is a lie.
 
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
321
Location
Sunny South
Thanks for your response.
No, but there were antebellum decisions on the underlying claims of state sovereignty and compact, principles asserted by the the secessionists to justify their actions. Again, further discussion here would be off-topic, so I suggest you start a new, separate thread to discuss this.
Start a new thread by backing up what you are saying. I'll follow.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,413
Location
Laurinburg NC
False analogy. Census numbers have nothing to do with how many Union soldiers are present for Duty at a given battlefield. Union troops has I have mentioned many time defeated Confederate troops on the offensive even when outnumbered.
Leftyhunter
I do too, outnumbered Confederate troops were often on the offensive, sometimes they were successful sometimes they weren't.
 
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
321
Location
Sunny South
But, back to the original question... the best "all around" soldiers would be those with experience (and plenty on both sides had that), and those furnished superior arms, equipment, footwear, clothing, rations, medicines, etc. As a note, at Nashville Union artillery shells were exploding at something like 90% or better where earlier in the war for both sides may have been 50% to 60% (I think) but by the end of the war CS shells may not have exceeded 60% tp 70%, not exactly sure but you get the point. Union artillery also had excellent guns and way more of them on any battlefield. All of these factors should go toward determining the superior force and maybe even the best all around soldier in the field at least the last year of the war.
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,620
Location
Denmark
No, that bogus chart says 26,701 people (including toddlers, wives, mothers, grandpa and grandma, etc.) lived in a household where one person in that household was a slaveholder. What this bogus researcher calls "families owning slaves". There were not 26,701 slaveholders in SC in 1860. All of this is a continuing effort to keep us all arguing and divided. These numbers are bogus. I am saying, after attempting to figure just 540 Rebels, you cannot determine such numbers without spending half a life time researching. Even the 26,701 figure is bogus Edited. They claimed they had a computer program to determine this and this is a lie.
If you are not going to accept original records from 1860, then you are Edited. wasting everyones time.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,413
Location
Laurinburg NC
How many did they say were AWOL in the confederate ranks...estimates of 100 thousand plus? I'd say lack of resolve had a LOT to do with the Confederate defeat also.

Kevin Dally
“On September 11, the provost marshall estimated the total number of desertions[Union] to be 195,253 not including men drafted men that failed to report. Offic. Rec., ser., V,109. On December 31, 1865, it was stated that 278,644 desertions had been reported, but that many of those reported had been sick on the march, injured without official knowledge, or otherwise justifiably absent. According to the same report the monthly desertions in 1863 averaged 4647; in 1864 they averaged 7333.”

J.G. Randall and David Donald, Civil War and Reconstruction, footnote 28 pp. 329-330.
 
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
321
Location
Sunny South
If you are not going to accept original records from 1860, then you are Edited. wasting everyones time.
You are missing the point. Those are not original records from 1860. They created numbers just to argue the average Rebel soldier was fighting to preserve the institution of slavery and that is ridiculous. 95% of free people in the south did not own a slave. 95%. Edited.
 
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
321
Location
Sunny South
“On September 11, the provost marshall estimated the total number of desertions[Union] to be 195,253 not including men drafted men that failed to report. Offic. Rec., ser., V,109. On December 31, 1865, it was stated that 278,644 desertions had been reported, but that many of those reported had been sick on the march, injured without official knowledge, or otherwise justifiably absent. According to the same report the monthly desertions in 1863 averaged 4647; in 1864 they averaged 7333.”

J.G. Randall and David Donald, Civil War and Reconstruction, footnote 28 pp. 329-330.
That's true. Both sides had many of the same problems.
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,829
Location
Texas
You are missing the point. Those are not original records from 1860. They created numbers just to argue the average Rebel soldier was fighting to preserve the institution of slavery and that is ridiculous. 95% of free people in the south did not own a slave. 95%. Re-read these posts a few times and maybe you will get it.
No, every Confederate fought for the goal of the government he fought for. They wanted independence to perpetuate slavery for all time. Folk can gloss it over all they want, it still comes out fighting for slavery. Any denial does not change it. The Union Soldier had a far better goal to fight for than his confederate counter part, he had a higher moral cause to fight for, than the confederate.
That ultimately made him better.

Kevin Dally
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
321
Location
Sunny South
No, every Confederate fought for the goal of the government he fought for. They wanted independence to perpetuate slavery for all time. Folk can gloss it over all they want, it still comes out fighting for slavery. Any denial does not change it. The Union Soldier had a far better goal to fight for than his confederate counter part, he had a higher moral cause to fight for, than the confederate.
That ultimately made him better.

Kevin Dally
Edited. I knew the next sentence would include Union soldiers risking their lives for the sole purpose of freeing enslaved people. Edited. Lincoln made very clear the institution of slavery, as it existed in the cotton states, was not being threatened in any way after he was elected. Very clear.
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top