Postwar Confederate West Point

[Luke Freet]

Trying to consider the postwar Confederate military (did an old thread talking about it's size and structure a long while back, may make that an omnibus topic down the line, but for now want to focus on this one issue). What will be the Confederacy's "West Point", their primary military academy?

First off, there's the possibility that it will become a State by State thing, where each state has their own military academy. However, while that is helpful for filling out the ranks during a period of mobilization with state trained officers, having one unified academy where your top brass will come from would be necessary for, say, another Civil War, once the old West Point alumni die off (and of course, not all West Point alumni they've gotten are going to end up as top brass).

So, what are the options? As far as I can see, the next most prestigious military academy in the South at this time was VMI (which produced many generals like Robert Rodes who would serve in the Army of Northern Virginia). However, there are problems with turning this into the Confederate State Military Academy (CSMA). First, as its already a state run school, and a rather vital part of Virginia's identity, I have doubts that they'll hand it over to Confederate use. Also, I imagine the other states would be upset that the CS government would be placing more emphasis on Virginia.

My personal dark horse would have to be what would be LSU in Baton Rouge. It was originally meant to be a military school, to be run by William T. Sherman (may have heard of him), before the war started. It's pretty new, located more centrally within the Confederacy (though leaning more west), conviniently located along the Mississippi River and near New Orleans, the South's largest city. The only big issues I can see is its located directly in the state cappital of Baton Rouge, so local politics is going to become a potential problem. There's probably more I can't see, or some advantages that I'm seeing that don't actually matter.

Maybe the Citadel, or one of the other smaller independent military academies around the deep south (like Micah Jenkins' King's Mountain Academy).

 

[C.J.]

Trying to consider the postwar Confederate military (did an old thread talking about it's size and structure a long while back, may make that an omnibus topic down the line, but for now want to focus on this one issue). What will be the Confederacy's "West Point", their primary military academy?

First off, there's the possibility that it will become a State by State thing, where each state has their own military academy. However, while that is helpful for filling out the ranks during a period of mobilization with state trained officers, having one unified academy where your top brass will come from would be necessary for, say, another Civil War, once the old West Point alumni die off (and of course, not all West Point alumni they've gotten are going to end up as top brass).

So, what are the options? As far as I can see, the next most prestigious military academy in the South at this time was VMI (which produced many generals like Robert Rodes who would serve in the Army of Northern Virginia). However, there are problems with turning this into the Confederate State Military Academy (CSMA). First, as its already a state run school, and a rather vital part of Virginia's identity, I have doubts that they'll hand it over to Confederate use. Also, I imagine the other states would be upset that the CS government would be placing more emphasis on Virginia.

My personal dark horse would have to be what would be LSU in Baton Rouge. It was originally meant to be a military school, to be run by William T. Sherman (may have heard of him), before the war started. It's pretty new, located more centrally within the Confederacy (though leaning more west), conviniently located along the Mississippi River and near New Orleans, the South's largest city. The only big issues I can see is its located directly in the state cappital of Baton Rouge, so local politics is going to become a potential problem. There's probably more I can't see, or some advantages that I'm seeing that don't actually matter.

Maybe the Citadel, or one of the other smaller independent military academies around the deep south (like Micah Jenkins' King's Mountain Academy).

I actually see the citadel as more likely then "LSU", its to far west and in a state capital, the citadel is both in a safer position and in the east which is still going to be the more important part of the Confederatecy.

 

[Tom Elmore]

By the very definition of confederate, I suspect each state would continue to run its own military schools:

Virginia - Virginia Military Institute; Danville Military Institute
North Carolina - North Carolina Military Institute; Franklin Military Institute; Hillsborough Military Academy
South Carolina - South Carolina Military Academy (now the Citadel); Arsenal Military Academy; King's Mountain Military Academy
Georgia - Georgia Military Institute
Alabama - University of Alabama's Military Department
Kentucky - Kentucky Military Institute
Tennessee - University of Nashville (which absorbed the Western Military Institute in 1855)

 

[C.J.]

By the very definition of confederate, I suspect each state would continue to run its own military schools:

Virginia - Virginia Military Institute; Danville Military Institute
North Carolina - North Carolina Military Institute; Franklin Military Institute; Hillsborough Military Academy
South Carolina - South Carolina Military Academy (now the Citadel); Arsenal Military Academy; King's Mountain Military Academy
Georgia - Georgia Military Institute
Alabama - University of Alabama's Military Department
Kentucky - Kentucky Military Institute
Tennessee - University of Nashville (which absorbed the Western Military Institute in 1855)

I still think that even if this is likely to happen, the Confederatecy will also have some sort of national level military academy, so that it has level training for its top level officers.

 

[Rusk County Avengers]

Personally I can't say I think there would've been a Confederate "West Point" at all.

With victory, the Confederacy would have been overloaded with debt, inherited the pre-war deep American distrust of large standing armies, the war vindicating that view in the people's eyes, a new government with a big emphasis on State's Rights, and a depression coming on, with no ability to expand to the west with a hostile United States retaining its hold there.

I imagine the CS Government would've opted to stay with the State military schools for officers. The pre-war US Army was made up mostly of immigrant enlisted men, and American officers, the CSA wouldn't have the large pool of immigrants to build a small professional army with, (didn't before or after the war), and I imagine the CS Military wouldn't have been a big deal, except in times of war.

If I were to hazard a guess the CSA wouldn't have been unlike the USA under the Articles of Confederation. Standing army of only one small undermanned regiment for the border regions, and started off with veteran officers from the war-time CS Army. That means no Confederate West Point, after all it wasn't till a good long time after the Constitution came along the USA had military school at West Point as we know it today, the CSA would've had no need of it as with no war, no chance of expansion, no wanting to be in the army.

The State military schools probably would've continued, free education after all, and the bulk of graduates gone directly into State Militias for quasi-military service and civilian lives. It would ensure the militias wouldn't collapse into the drunken, un-trained, mess it always did in the USA, and if war came and the CSA had to build an army of Federalized militia and volunteers, they'd have a very well educated cadre of officers to prove in each State to form and lead those militiamen and volunteers.

Least that's my guess.

 

[C.J.]

Personally I can't say I think there would've been a Confederate "West Point" at all.

With victory, the Confederacy would have been overloaded with debt, inherited the pre-war deep American distrust of large standing armies, the war vindicating that view in the people's eyes, a new government with a big emphasis on State's Rights, and a depression coming on, with no ability to expand to the west with a hostile United States retaining its hold there.

I imagine the CS Government would've opted to stay with the State military schools for officers. The pre-war US Army was made up mostly of immigrant enlisted men, and American officers, the CSA wouldn't have the large pool of immigrants to build a small professional army with, (didn't before or after the war), and I imagine the CS Military wouldn't have been a big deal, except in times of war.

If I were to hazard a guess the CSA wouldn't have been unlike the USA under the Articles of Confederation. Standing army of only one small undermanned regiment for the border regions, and started off with veteran officers from the war-time CS Army. That means no Confederate West Point, after all it wasn't till a good long time after the Constitution came along the USA had military school at West Point as we know it today, the CSA would've had no need of it as with no war, no chance of expansion, no wanting to be in the army.

The State military schools probably would've continued, free education after all, and the bulk of graduates gone directly into State Militias for quasi-military service and civilian lives. It would ensure the militias wouldn't collapse into the drunken, un-trained, mess it always did in the USA, and if war came and the CSA had to build an army of Federalized militia and volunteers, they'd have a very well educated cadre of officers to prove in each State to form and lead those militiamen and volunteers.

Least that's my guess.

Except that unlike the us post revolution, the Confederacy has a major power up north that it has to deal with. I personally expect the army to be a huge deal, even if its mostly well trained malitas the country still needs top level officers gust like the US did. Honestly Lee would probably push for it and therefore the country would probably do it.

 

[Jamieva]

VMI for several reasons. It is already established, in the same state as the national capital, and it had produced I believe the 2nd most officers of any military school in the country for the war (behind West Point).

 

[Rusk County Avengers]

Except that unlike the us post revolution, the Confederacy has a major power up north that it has to deal with. I personally expect the army to be a huge deal, even if its mostly well trained malitas the country still needs top level officers gust like the US did. Honestly Lee would probably push for it and therefore the country would probably do it.

Post revolution the US had the a hostile power, Britain, to its north as well, and them to the west, and Spain to the South in Florida constantly trying to incite stuff like the secession of Kentucky and joining them. All that's not counting the Indian threats everywhere. Plus another reason the USA didn't maintain an army post-1783 until Washington forced the creation of the "Legion of the United States" in the 1790's was because Congress couldn't pay them, and mutiny happened. Covered in Jeffersonian ideals, Americans had a DEEP distrust of standing armies as it could be a threat to our liberty they felt. Southerners, kept those ideals well into the CW, Confederate defeat set the wheels in motion to invalidate the idea gradually in the South, Confederate victory would've kept it going.

If anything the CSA would be facing less hostile forces than the post-revolution USA did. Add to that the fact with defeat the debt and ruined economics of New England, the USA would be in as bad a shape and unable to wage war as the CSA. The people in the CSA would've/were sick of war, as were the men in the ranks, they would've went home, same in the USA.

Post Gettysburg Lee's influence was much diminished, not because of anything he did, but because his health was horrible and he wasn't able to do as much. Post-CW he went on to superintend a school, and his health kept deteriorating more till his passing in 1871. I have a hard time seeing him being a big influence on anything. After victory he would have returned to Arlington and found something he was able to do to keep it running. Politics, and pushing for a strong CS Army with its own West Point I can't see him doing as it would have been more than he could handle. Plus the general weariness and the fact the South's number one export, cotton, was a market forever destroyed by the CW, with England and France getting elsewhere at a better price. The CSA wouldn't have been able to afford it.

 

[farrargirl]

The Alabama Corps of Cadets

The University of Alabama's Corps of Cadets
After opening it's doors in 1831, by 1860, Jefferson Davis saw the handwriting on the wall, and assembled a superior group of military leaders to add a Cadet Corps Department to the school. The appointment of Col. Caleb Huse from West Point to the fledgling department was a wise one.
Here is his brief bio from Find A Grave:

On April 3rd, 1865, the Cadets saw brief active duty in an angagement with 1500 Union troops led by General John Croxton. While they performed bravely defending a bridge on the Black Warrior River near the entrance to the school, they were unsuccessful in their attempt.
Croxton had orders to burn the school and all buildings of use to the Confederate cause. He followed orders at dawn the next day. The Cadet Corps was dissolved by 1903, but produced a number of generals and officers who would make their mark in military history and affairs.

 

[steve59p]

Post revolution the US had the a hostile power, Britain, to its north as well, and them to the west, and Spain to the South in Florida constantly trying to incite stuff like the secession of Kentucky and joining them. All that's not counting the Indian threats everywhere. Plus another reason the USA didn't maintain an army post-1783 until Washington forced the creation of the "Legion of the United States" in the 1790's was because Congress couldn't pay them, and mutiny happened. Covered in Jeffersonian ideals, Americans had a DEEP distrust of standing armies as it could be a threat to our liberty they felt. Southerners, kept those ideals well into the CW, Confederate defeat set the wheels in motion to invalidate the idea gradually in the South, Confederate victory would've kept it going.

If anything the CSA would be facing less hostile forces than the post-revolution USA did. Add to that the fact with defeat the debt and ruined economics of New England, the USA would be in as bad a shape and unable to wage war as the CSA. The people in the CSA would've/were sick of war, as were the men in the ranks, they would've went home, same in the USA.

Post Gettysburg Lee's influence was much diminished, not because of anything he did, but because his health was horrible and he wasn't able to do as much. Post-CW he went on to superintend a school, and his health kept deteriorating more till his passing in 1871. I have a hard time seeing him being a big influence on anything. After victory he would have returned to Arlington and found something he was able to do to keep it running. Politics, and pushing for a strong CS Army with its own West Point I can't see him doing as it would have been more than he could handle. Plus the general weariness and the fact the South's number one export, cotton, was a market forever destroyed by the CW, with England and France getting elsewhere at a better price. The CSA wouldn't have been able to afford it.

Not really. Britain wanted good relations, which was one reason it gave such generous terms to the rebels in the final treaty. It should be noted that it was the US that desired to invade Canada not vice versa and ditto with the Indians who were far more threatened than a threat to the US. The Spanish reaction on regaining Florida was to downgrade roads between it and the US to make an invasion more difficult, which doesn't sound like an aggressive operation.

Here the south, having won independence knows it has a more pompous northern neighbour, with a greater industrial base and many people of which probably still deny the right of the CSA to exist. This is not just a factor in itself but the fear of a 2nd war waged by the north is a good political tool to maintain both a sense of identity in the south and a decent military. How hostile the north will be post war depends on the circumstances and will probably vary from region to region and over time but there are bound to be at least a few hot-heads sounding off and if some of them get into elected into state or higher positions that would present a clear potential threat.

 

[Desert Kid]

VMI would definitely become a citadel.

 

[Saphroneth]

I don't think there'd have been any kind of long standing debt that would cause such a problem, partly because the Confederacy happens to be in control of the major US cash crop (cotton being much more financially important than grain).

the fact the South's number one export, cotton, was a market forever destroyed by the CW, with England and France getting elsewhere at a better price. The CSA wouldn't have been able to afford it.

Cotton from elsewhere wasn't as good, in general, and the US continued to export large amounts of cotton right up to (and past) WW1. Even with Northern cotton mills using much of the raw cotton for manufacturing, the US exported an average of $550 million in raw ("upland") cotton per year; with all the cotton used by Northern mills coming from the South in a Southern Independence situation then that would qualify as exported as well, driving the value of exports up past $750 million p.a. in 1910-14.

So no, the cotton market wasn't forever destroyed by the Civil War.
ED: in fact, by the looks of things, in 1870 cotton made up the majority by value of all US exports.

 

[Rusk County Avengers]

I don't think there'd have been any kind of long standing debt that would cause such a problem, partly because the Confederacy happens to be in control of the major US cash crop (cotton being much more financially important than grain).


Cotton from elsewhere wasn't as good, in general, and the US continued to export large amounts of cotton right up to (and past) WW1. Even with Northern cotton mills using much of the raw cotton for manufacturing, the US exported an average of $550 million in raw ("upland") cotton per year; with all the cotton used by Northern mills coming from the South in a Southern Independence situation then that would qualify as exported as well, driving the value of exports up past $750 million p.a. in 1910-14.

So no, the cotton market wasn't forever destroyed by the Civil War.
ED: in fact, by the looks of things, in 1870 cotton made up the majority by value of all US exports.

The problem with Southern cotton was it was more expensive than the product from India and Egypt, which Britain turned to during the war. It was cheaper, and grown in territory controlled by the British Empire, and probably would've looked safer to buy that, as for all one knows there was less likelihood of another war in America interrupting the supply chain, all that's not counting the slavery factor, which there was a distaste towards in Europe.

The Crash of 1870 was brought on by the Europeans buying less American cotton, the whole chain of events from that going back to the war itself. Sure it was still profitable, but was it profitable enough to feed, cloth, and keep healthy the slave workforce? I don't think so. The whole cotton economic question, along with internal politics in the Confederacy says to me the CSA wouldn't be very wealthy, at least till Spindletop.

 

[Rusk County Avengers]

I can't say I feel like digging through the hundreds of them for the exact figures, @Saphroneth but my GG-Grandfather was a cotton farmer his whole life, (1861-I think 1941), I have all his receipts from selling cotton from 1870 on, as well as notes what they used to make before hand. Before the crash they could make hundreds of dollars for the family, after 1870 they'd make maybe a hundred dollars to last them till next season, and further down the road they'd have to make $15 dollars off a crop. They ended up turning sharecroppers as they knew no other way of living. I may not have the big figures, but looking at through that small lens is where most of my thought process comes from.

Thinking about it makes me wish my Granddad was still around to tell the stories of it all when he was a kid.

Even to this day Southerners learn a way to make money, and can never picture or figure out another way to do it more than any other group of people I've ever seen, (I see it everyday with coalminers and oilfield), and stick to the sinking ship. This trait coupled with cotton becoming next to worthless, and slavery not being ended in 1865, tells me the CSA would've royally screwed till oil and coal displaced cotton as the main cash "crop" which it really did in reality.

(As for my family I've brought up, they never owned a slave and picked it all themselves. They were a small family cotton operation, which is a type of cotton farming a lot of folks tend to forget about, thinking only large plantations grew cotton.)

 

[Saphroneth]

The problem with Southern cotton was it was more expensive than the product from India and Egypt, which Britain turned to during the war. It was cheaper, and grown in territory controlled by the British Empire, and probably would've looked safer to buy that, as for all one knows there was less likelihood of another war in America interrupting the supply chain, all that's not counting the slavery factor, which there was a distaste towards in Europe.

The Crash of 1870 was brought on by the Europeans buying less American cotton, the whole chain of events from that going back to the war itself. Sure it was still profitable, but was it profitable enough to feed, cloth, and keep healthy the slave workforce? I don't think so. The whole cotton economic question, along with internal politics in the Confederacy says to me the CSA wouldn't be very wealthy, at least till Spindletop.

What Crash of 1870? I can see the Panic of 1873 but that was kicked off by financial troubles in Vienna.
In 1850 1.854 million bales of cotton were exported; in 1870 2.923 million bales were exported; in 1900 6.807 million bales were exported.

And yes, cotton was still extremely profitable in the 1910s. I mentioned that historically the US moved over $500 M in cotton per year in the 1910-14 period; to put that in perspective the value of all other US exports combined in that year was about three times that (so about $1,500M). With the increase mentioned owing to most domestic use of cotton being export instead (to the North) in the event of Confederate independence, this means that the amount of money the CSA made from cotton exports only is half or more the total amount of money the historical USA made from everything else; in 1870 cotton made up a staggering 60% of all US exports in that year by value.

The idea the cotton industry had collapsed in 1870 is not borne out by the data. It was exporting more in both value and volume than it had two decades previously and was an even larger share of the US export market than it had in 1850; cotton production rose faster than everything else put together.

 

[Rusk County Avengers]

What Crash of 1870? I can see the Panic of 1873

I meant Panic of 1873, my mind's in a hundred different places.

 

[Saphroneth]

I meant Panic of 1873, my mind's in a hundred different places.

Right, but the Panic of 1873 started in Vienna; if Europe stopped buying cotton that would be because of the financial crisis, not something systemic and long-term.

 

[th'anchoriticsybarite]

What took me a while to realize that your premise was what would have happened after the South WINS the CW.

The premise contains several major assertions.

1. The South regains control of New Orleans and of course the Mississippi River. Really. The North has firm control of the River and voluntarily cedes control back to the CSA? I DON'T THINK SO. Control of the mouth of the Mississippi is vital to the farmer of the NW. The North can survive secession--it cannot continue to exist without control of New Orleans. Following WWI, the Poles controlled Danzig. Something the Germans could not live with. No more so the South.

2. What keeps the CSA together. Florida has almost nothing in common with any of the CSA. So too Texas. The core of the CSA is the SC--La corridor. Virginia has little in common with anything south of itself. NC and Tenn are really two totally different states split east-west. Missouri is actually split in 3 parts, North, South, and Midwest.

3. The eventual final arrangement of the CSA becomes some parts being in some measure being reassimilated into the North, some parts being attached to one or more European powers, and the rest a very small part of the remainder being an independent nation.

 

[Saphroneth]

It's not impossible for the South to become independent without losing New Orleans in the first place, especially in a Trent scenario.

 

[steve59p]

What took me a while to realize that your premise was what would have happened after the South WINS the CW.

The premise contains several major assertions.

1. The South regains control of New Orleans and of course the Mississippi River. Really. The North has firm control of the River and voluntarily cedes control back to the CSA? I DON'T THINK SO. Control of the mouth of the Mississippi is vital to the farmer of the NW. The North can survive secession--it cannot continue to exist without control of New Orleans. Following WWI, the Poles controlled Danzig. Something the Germans could not live with. No more so the South.

2. What keeps the CSA together. Florida has almost nothing in common with any of the CSA. So too Texas. The core of the CSA is the SC--La corridor. Virginia has little in common with anything south of itself. NC and Tenn are really two totally different states split east-west. Missouri is actually split in 3 parts, North, South, and Midwest.

3. The eventual final arrangement of the CSA becomes some parts being in some measure being reassimilated into the North, some parts being attached to one or more European powers, and the rest a very small part of the remainder being an independent nation.

1) It would depend on the circumstances but its not control of the mouth but of the entire length of the river through Confederation territory. The north either controls the entire length, which would cause a lot of tension with the south and especially the population of the occupied territory or it has a deal for access via the river. There are other geographical options, via the St Lawrence or railways to the east coast although via the Ohio and Mississippi is the cheapest in most cases. However if the south wins big, or early as Saphroneth suggests by the north picking a fight with Britain then its a moot point.

Danzig isn't a good example both because the Poles didn't actually control it -as it was a separate free city - and because the reason for the Polish cooridoor was to give that a safe access to the sea. As such in that case the north are the Poles and the south Germany.

2) That is a good point unless there is a lot of tension with the north. Mind you the same could be said of the original states in the 1780's and despite any threat to their independence they managed to maintain a lasting union.

3) I can't see any parts of an independent south ending up under European control. No body had the interests and resources for that.