Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

Robin Lesjovitch

Sergeant
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
SC left the union because of fear? So they left because they were safer in the union then out of it? Why isn't this registering? Could it be because of slavery mythology, that the war was all about slavery instead of real estate? The explanation that it was all about slavery is the true lost cause argument.
Yes. fear. Fear of the Black majority in SC, and the possible lack of safety in a Union controlled by a Republican C-in-C. Of course, SC would not have attempted such a move had it not been reasonably sure it would not be alone.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Sure.

It's a shame that their ancestors perverted their intent of ending slavery peacefully over time, as espoused by several of the Founders. Alexander Stephens made the mistake of admitting that prior to his cornerstone speech.

It's more of a shame that the 1,709 dead that Virginia paid for the birth of a new nation was dwarfed by the 32,571 dead it lost in a fruitless war to ensure the enslavement of their fellow man, explicitly for the monetary gain of their ersatz nobility.

More than half again the total of all other wars Virginia has been involved in, a total of which is 20,486 according to the Virginia Military Dead Database.

It is clear to me that Virginia's leaders were foolhardy, unjust, and unwise. I can't travel five miles without passing a cemetery that proves their folly.

Sometimes I feel that way, but the secessionists could have won and the investment in blood and gold paid off with a new nation. Knowing what was known in 1861, the risk was reasonable and secession was logical.
 

Robin Lesjovitch

Sergeant
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Maybe you 'miswrote', but this is what you stated: The fact is had either or both of those two caught a bullet after the war it just as well have been considered a natural death considering how much fate they had tempted since 1861.

He actually didn't negotiate his battalions surrender, instead he disbanded them.

Certainly Mosby was loyal to those who treated him well - just as much to Jeb Stuart and Longstreet as Grant.

.
What is relevant to this thread is that Mosby sought assurances that his Rangers would be treated as had Lee's men. It was only then he disbanded the battalion, but Mosby did not seek parole as most of his men did.
Virginia was whipped and irredeemable, but Mosby hadn't had enough. This does not seem to be a man dragged into a war by devotion to his State as much as a man ready to fight.
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
The delegates voted against secession until after Sumter and the Call to Arms. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.RICHMOND, Va., April 16, 1861.
HON. SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War:
SIR: I received your telegram of the 15th, the genuineness of which I doubted. Since that time (have received your communication, mailed the same day, in which I am requested to detach from the militia of the State of Virginia “the quota designated in a table,” which you append, “to serve as infantry or riflemen for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged.”
In reply to this communication, I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object — an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795 — will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited towards the South.
Respectfully,
JOHN LETCHER.

The what if’s are mere speculation. Due to individual divided loyalties each are a case by case basis and regiments would likely be formed for both sides. Washington DC, nor Fort Monroe for that matter, were ever occupied or captured by the Confederate Army, so relevancy?

So I state that you ignored all of the comments in this thread as to evidence that it wasn't simply the call to arms, and you respond by doing it again?

Regiments would indeed likely have been formed for both sides. That would have been a serious issue for the Confederacy, as Virginia supplied ~1/6th of its manpower by itself.

It doesn't take the Oracle of Delphi to see why Virginia joining the Confederacy was crucial to it's cause, and the lack of that declaration would have put a serious impact in their war making effort.

That is explicitly the reason the capital of the Confederacy was moved to Richmond!
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
No one is doubting the existence of the rebellion.
True, except that if the "CSA did not exist" in some form there would not have been a rebellion.
The issue here is what the so-called 'Confederate States of America" was (or, if one prefers, were). It certainly was a force fighting against the established, legal United States government. Was it just a rather large organization of rebels or an independent nation?
Lincoln and his administration considered them rebels. They considered themselves as independent. Even today there is disagreement, although one highly respected Historian, Gary Gallagher, is of the opinion that the conflict was between two separate, independent nations.
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Sometimes I feel that way, but the secessionists could have won and the investment in blood and gold paid off with a new nation. Knowing what was known in 1861, the risk was reasonable and secession was logical.

At best I think you can say that due to the lack of information they had at the time, it seemed reasonable and logical.

Yet your comments in the beginning of the thread concerning Wise's antics show that reason and logic were not the foundation of the secession. It was passion.

Saner heads had a good chance to prevail over time. The moderates were certainly attempting to delay the issue until that could occur. That's why Wise forced the issue, no?
 

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
So I state that you ignored all of the comments in this thread as to evidence that it wasn't simply the call to arms, and you respond by doing it again?

Regiments would indeed likely have been formed for both sides. That would have been a serious issue for the Confederacy, as Virginia supplied ~1/6th of its manpower by itself.

It doesn't take the Oracle of Delphi to see why Virginia joining the Confederacy was crucial to it's cause, and the lack of that declaration would have put a serious impact in their war making effort.

That is explicitly the reason the capital of the Confederacy was moved to Richmond!
All the comments, or the ones coinciding with your opinion? Never said it was only the call to arms, nor was it all about slavery as your apparently asserting. Why didn’t Virginia secede with the original seven if your theory is correct?
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Were the threats to Va by federal forces imaginary? Was the army going to bypass VA when invading the Deep South?

Coercion seemed to be there, by the call for troops after Sumter.

Is there a guarantee all free states would vote to abolish slavery even if DE and MD flipped? Northern businesses has financial ties to slavery.

Sumter situation has been boiling for months. Lincoln was warned about the pending war and border states with the supply mission by his General in Chief and members of his staff.

Again, financial ties were bound with slavery with the Deep South crossing the Mason Dixon.

Should Virginia have not taken the threat of war and its allegiance seriously vs Lincoln’s indifference?

Did each side not produce fire breathing radicals?

When did those federal troops actually show up. Maybe July 21, 1861.
 

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
At best I think you can say that due to the lack of information they had at the time, it seemed reasonable and logical.

Yet your comments in the beginning of the thread concerning Wise's antics show that reason and logic were not the foundation of the secession. It was passion.

Saner heads had a good chance to prevail over time. The moderates were certainly attempting to delay the issue until that could occur. That's why Wise forced the issue, no?
Both sides had issues with logic and reason at times, thus war. You would have to ask Wise about forcing the issue.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
At best I think you can say that due to the lack of information they had at the time, it seemed reasonable and logical.
The information available in the time and place is the only information they had.
Yet your comments in the beginning of the thread concerning Wise's antics show that reason and logic were not the foundation of the secession. It was passion.
Passion was the basis for the response of the Northern States.
Saner heads had a good chance to prevail over time. The moderates were certainly attempting to delay the issue until that could occur. That's why Wise forced the issue, no?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Getting passion to rule over reason was the strategy of all the secessionists AKA Southern Patriots. A battle between passion and reason is part of the human condition.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
You could review the recent thread where northern newspapers were unlawfully suppressed or multiple threads concerning the detention of thousands of disgruntled folks against their will.
I could, but asking for court cases and congressional reprimands as evidence seems easier on my aged eyes.
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
All the comments, or the ones coinciding with your opinion? Never said it was only the call to arms, nor was it all about slavery as your apparently asserting. Why didn’t Virginia secede with the original seven if your theory is correct?

It's pretty explicit in the minutes of the convention. They were hoping to avoid a war by getting Lincoln to give assurances to protect secession and slavery. Here's what they sent to him as the official policy of the convention:


Proposals Adopted by the Virginia Convention of 1861
The first resolution asserted states' rights per se; the second was for retention of slavery; the third opposed sectional parties; the fourth called for equal recognition of slavery in both territories and non-slave states; the fifth demanded the removal of federal forts and troops from seceded states; the sixth hoped for a peaceable adjustment of grievances and maintaining the Union; the seventh called for Constitutional amendments to remedy federal and state disputes; the eighth recognized the right of secession; the ninth said the federal government had no authority over seceded states since it refused to recognize their withdrawal; the tenth said the federal government was empowered to recognize the Confederate States; the eleventh was an appeal to Virginia's sister states; the twelfth asserted Virginia's willingness to wait a reasonable period of time for an answer to its propositions, providing no one resorted to force against the seceded states; the thirteenth asked United States and Confederate States governments to remain peaceful; and the fourteenth asked the border slave states to meet in conference to consider Virginia's resolutions and to join in Virginia's appeal to the North

And of course many of them realized what the cost would be if they seceded.

Alexander Stuart, one of the three delegates sent to Lincoln with those demands, stated: "Secession is not only war," he warned his colleagues, "but it is emancipation; it is bankruptcy; it is repudiation; it is widespread ruin to our people."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
Top