The Never-Ending Question

[Sons of Liberty]

To make Kentucky part of the Confederacy (as Cash said).

I'm not saying the Confederates were constantly and invariably on the offense, but none of those actions indicate some defensive mindset interfering with acting offensively or abstaining from attempted conquest.

What stopped the Confederates from attacking Washington was the obstacles in the way of success, not some refusal to advance beyond the seceded states.

I agree with you. Taking Forts and seizing armories are also offensive actions, but when the Confederates fired on Sumter there wasn't a large scale invasion of the North happening simultaneously. That just wasn't their war aim. Would they have done it differently if they had a crystal ball? Probably.

 

[28thNewYork]

It'seems obvious to me that the deity to whom the Federal prayed was more powerful than the diety to whom the Rebels prayed... Seems as valid an answer as any other...

 

[Sons of Liberty]

It'seems obvious to me that the deity to whom the Federal prayed was more powerful than the diety to whom the Rebels prayed... Seems as valid an answer as any other...

Or perhaps they prayed to the same God, but one side prayed amiss.

 

[unionblue]

Or perhaps they prayed to the same God, but one side prayed amiss.

Or God just shook his head at the stupidity of his creations, North and South.

Unionblue

 

[rpkennedy]

To prove the right of a state to determine for itself when the Constitution has been violated, Morse quotes Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions which point out that if the government had the right to determine when the Constitution was violated, then the government would be the arbiter of its own power and not the Constitution. The Kentucky Resolutions also reaffirm state sovereignty and independence.
Lincoln once argued that it might be necessary to violate part of the Constitution in order to save the whole, but by that reasoning, a man who is sworn to uphold the Constitution could justify violating 99 per cent of it.

Unfortunately, the Kentucky Resolutions (as well as the Virginia Resolutions and New York Resolutions) are not legally binding. As Madison himself said, the Constitution was to be ratified in total or not at all. There were no addendums allowed.

In any case, this forum has discussed this topic ad nauseum. Do a search in the Secession and Politics series of threads.

R

 

[thomas aagaard]

The states are not and where not independent and/or sovereign... They didn't not have their own Foreign politics. They could not enter into treaties with Foreign powers... Their laws was subject to the Constitution.

 

[jgoodguy]

Even John Quincy Adams said in an 1839 speech about secession that in "dissolving that which can no longer bind, we would have to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center." Also, Alexander Hamilton said, "to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised." These men, and many others, understood that there was a right of secession, and that the federal government would have no right to force anybody to remain in the Union.
By blatantly ignoring The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, was Lincoln not in effect recognizing that the State's did indeed have a rite of passage?

Opinion. Speeches. Not evidence of anything but opinion. Need laws and court decisions Got any?

 

[jgoodguy]

fwb35 has been sanctioned for multiple copyright violations. He will be unable to reply.

 

[W. Richardson]

And that is exactly why the Union did not have an army at all... but they did have a small force of partly trained soldiers well suited to keeping control of a huge border region.

To have an army you need large numbers of trained troops and trained officers of all branches, they need to be able to work together as an army in something resembling military competence and they need to be in the same general area so they can actually operate together.

By the standard of the time 15.000men was not an army, it was smaller then a Corps in the large European armies, and smaller than the standing forces most small European states had. It was not properly trained since they where not in any way use to even battalion drill, lets not even begin on Brigade drill and combined arms.
In my view there where no armies involved in the conflict before mid 62... Just look at a battle like Shiloh... it was large armed mobs... some units when into combat without having had any drill or even knew how to load their muskets.
--

About the failure. When I read you posts, everything point to you calling the prewar deployment a failure or the fact that they where not able to get them east by summer 61...Both are wrong since there was not anything anyone (like Scott) could have done about that.

There is nothing to suggest that you are talking about the decision to keep the regular army together when they finally managed to get most of it to the east during the last month of 61...
So it is really not clear that this was what you meant...

They had a standing army of approximately 15,000 + you wish to make it appear they did not have an army at all which is not factual. It was a failure on their part not to use the army in a more positive and productive way than they did.
If you wish to continue stating the United States had no standing army, you may do so, but you will be factually wrong, and that is how myth's begin..........Was the United States Government a real government ? or was it too just a "myth" too ?

I hope you are not attempting to make it appear the Union really did not have all those big advantages that they had, another attempt to make the Union appear as the....poor, poor Union, attacked by those big bad rebels...........

Respectfully,

William

 

[unionblue]

They had a standing army of approximately 15,000 + you wish to make it appear they did not have an army at all which is not factual. It was a failure on their part not to use the army in a more positive and productive way than they did.
If you wish to continue stating the United States had no standing army, you may do so, but you will be factually wrong, and that is how myth's begin..........Was the United States Government a real government ? or was it too just a "myth" too ?

I hope you are not attempting to make it appear the Union really did not have all those big advantages that they had, another attempt to make the Union appear as the....poor, poor Union, attacked by those big bad rebels...........

Respectfully,

William

(Sigh!)

I wish you could be made to understand, William, that a nearly 16,000 man army, primarily deployed to patrol and ride herd on Indians, 2/3rds deployed West of the Mississippi, had very little impact on the war that was fought primarily of mobs of volunteers, on both sides.

Advantage? How did all those forts, arsenals, ships, mints, and shipyards fall to those rebel forces before Ft. Sumter? I'll give you one hint. All those US Army forces were OUTNUMBERED by the Confederates who took them.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[Lost Cause]

Advantage? How did all those forts, arsenals, ships, mints, and shipyards fall to those rebel forces before Ft. Sumter? I'll give you one hint. All those US Army forces were OUTNUMBERED by the Confederates who took them.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Withdrawn in order to avoid starting a war. Most of them anyway.

 

[W. Richardson]

(Sigh!)

I wish you could be made to understand, William, that a nearly 16,000 man army, primarily deployed to patrol and ride herd on Indians, 2/3rds deployed West of the Mississippi, had very little impact on the war that was fought primarily of mobs of volunteers, on both sides.

Advantage? How did all those forts, arsenals, ships, mints, and shipyards fall to those rebel forces before Ft. Sumter? I'll give you one hint. All those US Army forces were OUTNUMBERED by the Confederates who took them.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

So now we are in the business of "making" one understand ?

I have never stated the U.S. army had a major impact on the war, I have stated, and factually, the U.S. had a standing army...........if it's one's opinion that the U.S. had no standing army then I can accept an opinion, but fact is the U.S. had a standing army and used it however they decided to use it, however that does not take away from the fact the U.S. had an army. You can twist it, shake it, throw it up in the air or down on the ground...........Fact is the U.S. had a standing army.

All those US army forces in the forts, and arsenals, ships, mints, and shipyards were outnumbered, never have I stated they were not. I will give you a hint............... it is a good thing to outnumber your opponent when attempting to take a fort, an arsenal, a ship, a mint, or a shipyard.

Respectfully,

William

 

[ole]

They had a standing army of approximately 15,000 + you wish to make it appear they did not have an army at all which is not factual. It was a failure on their part not to use the army in a more positive and productive way than they did.
If you wish to continue stating the United States had no standing army, you may do so, but you will be factually wrong, and that is how myth's begin..........Was the United States Government a real government ? or was it too just a "myth" too ?

I hope you are not attempting to make it appear the Union really did not have all those big advantages that they had, another attempt to make the Union appear as the....poor, poor Union, attacked by those big bad rebels...........

Respectfully,

William

It is well understood by most that the "standing army" was manning coastal installations, being pretty around Washington City, and manning frontier forts. Guess where almost all of the standing army was?

Was the standing army going to be called in and leave the frontier unwatched?

Like the Confederacy, the Union had to build an army from scratch, as did the Confederacy, but the Confederacy had a head start.

 

[W. Richardson]

It is well understood by most that the "standing army" was manning coastal installations, being pretty around Washington City, and manning frontier forts. Guess where almost all of the standing army was?

Was the standing army going to be called in and leave the frontier unwatched?

Like the Confederacy, the Union had to build an army from scratch, as did the Confederacy, but the Confederacy had a head start.

At least you understand the U.S. had a standing army and you are not denying that.
How did the Confederacy have a head start ? The South did have a number of pre-war militia units if that is what you are talking about, then I do agree................But did not the North have pre-war militia units ?

Respectfully,

William

 

[ole]

At least you understand the U.S. had a standing army and you are not denying that.
How did the Confederacy have a head start ? The South did have a number of pre-war militia units if that is what you are talking about, then I do agree................But did not the North have pre-war militia units ?

Respectfully,

William

Both had militia units. As soon as Davis became Provisional President of the CSA, he called for volunteers for a CSA army -- 75,000, I think it was. (He didn't get that many and I forget how many he got.) Lincoln couldn't do that without the consent of Congress which was not in session. He could, however, call up militia to put down a rebellion which the firing on Ft. Sumter clearly was.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Oh the union had lots of advantages.... larger population, more industry and so on... A real army was just not one of them.

What we are debating is the definition of the word "army"

Sure they had 15.000 men in a number of individual companies... spread over half a continent.
Even if they where gathered in one place 10 Battalions make for 5 brigades... by the prewar doctrine... that is just 2 divisions.
And it had no structure or training for doing even that... Even battalion drill was not something that was actually drilled, since the companies was posted one here and two there.

Having armed men don't make it an army... they need to be training to operate as an army... that need trained men and officers and structures to support it... all of it lacking.

(This Is really no different than the danish home guard today. Sure it got some 30.000 members armed and equipped by the state... But its is organized in a large number of small local companies that is at best trained for doing platoon size operations... It is not equipped or trained for anything more and as such is not in any way an army... )

The force did simply not have the training, structure or size to be a real army... And this was not the fault of Lincoln or anyone else who had to deal with it when war broke out... It was the result of decades of distrust in a real standing army.

And their locations was the the result of prewar political decisions. including some made by a secretary who showed himself to be a traitor who misused his position to help the south.

There is no way Lincoln or any loyal officer could do anything about this until Lincoln took office...

 

[W. Richardson]

Both had militia units. As soon as Davis became Provisional President of the CSA, he called for volunteers for a CSA army -- 75,000, I think it was. (He didn't get that many and I forget how many he got.) Lincoln couldn't do that without the consent of Congress which was not in session. He could, however, call up militia to put down a rebellion which the firing on Ft. Sumter clearly was.

I do not recall the exact number that Davis received either, but he did call for 75,000 so in that respect, I will agree the CSA had a head start, if one wishes to call it that. I do not know how much of a head start it was though......lol....But it must have been to some advantage for the CSA. as they did kick some yankee but at 1st Manassas........

Respectfully,

William

 

[thomas aagaard]

But it must have been to some advantage for the CSA. as they did kick some yankee but at 1st Manassas......

Yep fighting on the defensive... a lot easier for armed mobs when they don't have to move so much...

 

[W. Richardson]

What we are debating is the definition of the word "army"

No I don't think there is any debate. The 15,000+ "army" did it not have an official title ?

Respectfully,

William

 

[thomas aagaard]

So the name is what define it? Then I guess what the south did was Rebellion because that is what it was called.

Or lets look at the IRA... a independence movement/terrorist organization...
Or how about The Salvation Army...