State Loyalty and Secession.

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
Except those historians are wrong...

?? Speculation can't be wrong...some historians have speculated .the Confederacy knew that all it really had to do was demonstrate for a bit longer in order to prevail. That's a highly valid speculation given the context of 1863, yes? The Confederate leaders were real people, not Foghorn Leghorns. Confederate leaders, Lee included, were able to "read the writing on the wall" as it were.

In any case let's admit that no prominent CW historian has speculated the Confederacy actually wanted to conquer .the North. That goal so obviously ridiculous, it's only logical to suppose that the Confederacy had an actually realistic strategy in mind: most likely that was to demonstrate for a bit longer and ride out the election cycle in the North, the tactic being to threaten Pennsylvania and Washington D.C. -- the original and the current seat of the United States government. Smart.

That's such a valid thing to suppose, given that Lincoln himself recognized the strategy and was compelled to issue the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation and black enlistments in order to stop that train. It's valid to suppose that was about the only thing that would have worked at t, tat point, and it did work. Smart.

Even as amateur historians, there's no useful purpose served in flag-waving more that a hundred fifty years after the fact.
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
?? Speculation can't be wrong...some historians have speculated .the Confederacy knew that all it really had to do was demonstrate for a bit longer in order to prevail. That's a highly valid speculation given the context of 1863, yes? The Confederate leaders were real people, not Foghorn Leghorns. Confederate leaders, Lee included, were able to "read the writing on the wall" as it were.

In any case let's admit that no prominent CW historian has speculated the Confederacy actually wanted to conquer .the North. That goal so obviously ridiculous, it's only logical to suppose that the Confederacy had an actually realistic strategy in mind: most likely that was to demonstrate for a bit longer and ride out the election cycle in the North, the tactic being to threaten Pennsylvania and Washington D.C. -- the original and the current seat of the United States government. Smart.

That's such a valid thing to suppose, given that Lincoln himself recognized the strategy and was compelled to issue the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation and black enlistments in order to stop that train. It's valid to suppose that was about the only thing that would have worked at t, tat point, and it did work. Smart.

Even as amateur historians, there's no useful purpose served in flag-waving more that a hundred fifty years after the fact.
I never said the Confederacy had to conquer the entirety of the North.I did say that conventional wars are won by siezing and holding enemy territory. For the Confederacy to win they would of had to sieze and hold some Northern territory. Conventional wars are not won by giving up important territory and allowing the enemy to tighten a blockade.
Riding out the election was not smart as even McCelllan himself stated that he would not accept an independent Confederate nation.
Leftyhunter
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
...Riding out the election was not smart...

Or, yes it was. Lincoln had literally conceded that it would work, his 1864 concession speech in hand.

So I'll go with what Lee and Lincoln based their actions on at the time. I kind of feel that their actually being there -- in the white-hot center of the very events we're considering here -- trumps modern hindsight. But that's an imho. I recognize and appreciate the other opinions here.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Or, yes it was. Lincoln had literally conceded that it would work, his 1864 concession speech in hand.

So I'll go with what Lee and Lincoln based their actions on at the time. I kind of feel that their actually being there -- in the white-hot center of the very events we're considering here -- trumps modern hindsight. But that's an imho. I recognize and appreciate the other opinions here.
By the time McCelllan would of assumed office it would be March 1865 a bit late for McCelllan to grant the Confederacy independence. McCelllan made it very clear that if he won he would not grant independence to the Confederacy.
That's not an opinion McCelllan made his thoughts known when he wrote a letter accepting the Democratic Party Nomination for the Presidency.
Leftyhunter
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
...conventional wars are won by siezing and holding enemy territory...

Or, not. Even to suppose that "conventional war" is some kind of norm, seizing and holding enemy territory is far from the only way wars have been won. I think a bit of military War College curriculum is in order before either of us takes this beyond opinion.

Neither state loyalty or secession are military precepts anyway, to get back on topic.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
By the time McCelllan would of assumed office it would be March 1865 a bit late for McCelllan to grant the Confederacy independence. McCelllan made it very clear that if he won he would not grant independence to the Confederacy...

...yet in the same breath McClellen was prepared to accept slavery which, not to be naive, is practically the same thing.

We can fairly suppose that the name "The Confederacy" would have easily been sacrificed in return for everything the Confederacy was founded on.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
...yet in the same breath McClellen was prepared to accept slavery which, not to be naive, is practically the same thing.

We can fairly suppose that the name "The Confederacy" would have easily been sacrificed in return for everything the Confederacy was founded on.
To be fair to McCelllan slavery was perfectly legal in the summer of 1864 . Lincoln never stated that he wanted to end slavery until he introduced the 13th Amendment. The Confederacy didn't attempt Secession because they thought slavery would be outlawed but because they couldn't expand slavery.
Leftyhunter
 

1stTennKy

Cadet
Joined
Dec 24, 2020
Hope this doesn't go too far afield but I'd like to consider the very concept of secession at the beginning. Under the original Articles of Confederation each of the thirteen states had a right to withdraw at any time. When the Constitution replaced the Articles there was no mention of secession in it one way or the other. This gives rise to opposing possibilities: (1) the Framers intended for there to be a right of secession but did not want to encourage it so wrote nothing about exits or (2) the Framers did not intend for there to be a right of withdrawal but dared not plainly say so. After all, the launching of the Constitution depended on (at least nine) of the states voluntarily joining the new union. If the states had been told that, once they joined, they could never leave, how many would have ratified in the first place? So what about in 1860-61? Did silence mean consent? If the union was a union of free and equal states, why shouldn't the Southern states have been free to depart? Abraham Lincoln did not want the question to be resolved by Roger Taney.
 

1stTennKy

Cadet
Joined
Dec 24, 2020
What I just finished writing a few minutes ago has prompted me to consider another issue. In a political entity like ours with dual citizenships, where should the greater attachment lie? When Jefferson wrote about "his country" he meant Virginia not the United States. Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that he expected most of the governing to be done in the state capitals. If, as Jefferson believed, the government that governs better is the government closer to home, aren't people likelier to live closer to Nashville (or Tallahassee or Baton Rouge or Indianapolis or Sacramento) than to Washington DC.?
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
Somebody needs to write a book on that, I know of about 63 Northern Confederates, many were from PA, I found that odd.

What makes someone a Northerner? That list certainly shows northern-born. But is that all it takes, the place of birth?
The first one on that list is CW Adams. He moved to Arkansas as a teenager and had lived there for over 25 years by the time of the Civil war. Does that make him a Northerner?
 

GwilymT

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
What makes someone a Northerner? That list certainly shows northern-born. But is that all it takes, the place of birth?
The first one on that list is CW Adams. He moved to Arkansas as a teenager and had lived there for over 25 years by the time of the Civil war. Does that make him a Northerner?
I agree, simply being born in the north isn’t really a good qualifier. Someone who lived the majority of their adult life in the south or moved south as a child joining the CSA is much different than a citizen of a northern state going south to fight for the rebels.

I’ve read through some of those on the list and it seems that in most cases these people had either lived most of their life, or at least several years, in the south prior to the war.

(Oddly enough, it seems many of those on this list became Republicans after the war.)
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
Under the original Articles of Confederation each of the thirteen states had a right to withdraw at any time.
Are you sure about this? I could not fin anything supporting that and Article 13 says "Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual"
So its not clear to me that they had a right to withdraw at any time

When the Constitution replaced the Articles there was no mention of secession in it one way or the other. This gives rise to opposing possibilities: (1) the Framers intended for there to be a right of secession but did not want to encourage it so wrote nothing about exits or (2) the Framers did not intend for there to be a right of withdrawal but dared not plainly say so.
Thats the only choices you could come up with?

If the states had been told that, once they joined, they could never leave, how many would have ratified in the first place?
Probably all of them

So what about in 1860-61? Did silence mean consent? If the union was a union of free and equal states, why shouldn't the Southern states have been free to depart? Abraham Lincoln did not want the question to be resolved by Roger Taney.
Why not? Taney's record indicated he wouldnt support secession
 
Top