Was it worth it?

[Pork Chop Phil]

Perhaps Lee was hoping to win it in the East before it was lost in the West. He did agree to and his crack troops west in September'63, and that didn't work it too well, either.

 

[RebelWeber]

IMO, slavery would have died out without the Civil War, but I think it took the war to kill the notion of secession.

Is the union perpetual ... I still can't answer definitively, but I lean towards no, citing the switch from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution for the United States. If 12 out of 13 states can meet and 9 sign on to toss out the old government in 1781, why can't several states do the same in 1860/1861?

 

[CW Buff]

Again. The election wasn't close. You're acting as if McClellan was a hair's breadth from victory, when Grant and Sherman's success tipped the scales and snatched it from him.

So then what you are essentially saying is the CSA preventing those victories would have accounted for at least a ten point swing, which is…well, it's something.

Point out where I said the election was close. I can read material about what happened and understand Lincoln trounced Mac on election day as well as anyone can. That's not the point. The conversation you jumped in on was when did the Confederacy no longer have a chance. I suppose you would say April 1861, because we know what happened, and what happened = what chance they had.

What I can't do, and won't do, is pretend that, before Atlanta fell, I would have known Sherman was going to take Atlanta before the election and Lincoln would therefore win the election. You haven't given me much to go on, but you apparently think Sherman was going to take Atlanta prior to the election and Lincoln would therefore win decisively, because Sherman took Atlanta before the election and Lincoln did win decisively. If that's inaccurate, try indicating what you do believe, instead of just what you don't believe. If not, your opinion is founded on nothing but

presentism - Interpreting past phenomena in terms of current beliefs and knowledge.

I don't see why anyone who treats those events as virtual givens at that time (prior to Atlanta), or even likely, should be taken seriously, when so many people at the time thought the election wasn't going to be close (as in, not close = Mac was going to win, BIG). Unless I've missed something, no such person has provided any reasoning other than presentism. I know I've only provided several quotes by people who thought Lincoln was going to lose big, but that's infinitely more than the quotes that have been provided of people who thought Lincoln was going to win, big or small. How can anyone say they would have felt Atlanta was going to fall before the election and Lincoln was therefore going to win, without providing one person that expressed that belief ahead of time, and claim that's anything other than presentism? I don't know what makes people believe they would have bucked the trend and reasoned it out in a way that people of that time apparently could not.

If I understand it right, I would say the statement that McClellan was a hair's breadth from victory, when Sherman's success tipped the scales and snatched it from him is sufficiently accurate. How could anyone look at Republican sentiment in August and suggest the idea is flawed? Some of them added things such as "unless some great change takes place (Lincoln told Butler, "You think I don't know I am going to be beaten, but I do and unless some great change takes place badly beaten"). But I know of no one who said they felt such a thing was likely to happen, let alone picked out any one particular thing. I'm also not getting where Grant figures into this. What was the "success" he had that helped tip the scales? Generals must have known about the major political developments going on. Did Sherman cable Lincoln not to worry because he was certain he would have Atlanta in the bag in a few weeks. How close does the fall of Atlanta have to get to the election to be close? One month instead of two? One week? Additionally, timing wise, Davis helped Sherman when he replaced Johnston with Hood in mid July because Hood would be more aggressive, and Hood helped Sherman by doing just that. Like I've said before, the Confederates didn't have to win, they just had to not lose. Davis and Hood mucked that up in this case. Hood exhausted his army on multiple frontal attacks right up to August 31. Hood lost 14-15,000 men (out of an original 55,000) to Sherman's 7,600 (of 85,000).

Again, yes, absolutely, I would say the fall of Atlanta resulted in at least a 10% swing. In August Republicans thought they were going to lose big. On election day they won big. What's your theory, that it had no effect? Whatever their methods were, Republicans were clearly gauging the electorate.

"I feel compelled to drop you a line concerning the political condition of the country as it strikes me. I am in active correspondence with your staunchest friends in every state and from them all I hear but one report. The tide is setting strongly against us. Hon. E. B. Washburne writes that were an election to be held now in Illinois we should be beaten. Mr. Cameron writes that Pennsylvania is against us. Gov. Morton writes that nothing but the most strenuous efforts can carry Indiana. This state [New York], according to the best information I can get, would go 50,000 against us to-morrow. And so of the rest. Nothing but the most resolute and decided action on the part of the government and its friends, can save the country from falling into hostile hands." – Henry J. Raymond (chairman of the Republican National Committee, who Lincoln called his General in politics) to Lincoln, August 22, 1864

Next you will tell us Dukakis was just an ill-conceived tank ride away from beating HW Bush.

Next you will tell us you predicted the 1988 election BEFORE Dukakis took his tank ride.

 

[CW Buff]

This is the problem with these types of arguments. It's circular logic.

The south would have won if Lincoln had lost the election, and for Lincoln to lose the election, the south would have had to be winning.

I think you guys ought to read up on the 1864 election, as well. Because while those living through it may have had some trepidation, it was not and was never going to be close. Lincoln got nearly double the number of electoral votes he needed, and won the popular vote by 10 points, very similar to his first election.

Not taking Atlanta by September is not going to change that. By 1864 the confederacy had even less of a chance of victory than the years prior.

Right. It's circular because you say it is. But that's just your presentism talking. The funny part is your third sentence is the most blatant case of circular logic that's been presented so far (plus it's just wrong). That's two sentences away from your circular logic accusation.

And likewise, you would have had it figured out ahead of time because you say you would. With that presentism logic, the Confederates had no chance from day one, which is nonsense. That things happened they way did, does mean they HAD TO happen the way they did. ALL that had to happen is the Confederates had to hold Atlanta until the election. With that, the northern mood does not improve, a guy who proposes an immediate armistice is the president elect, and who wants to die on a battlefield just before an armistice. Lincoln's desperate contingency plan demonstrates that this was not only a real possibility, it was the fear. Without Atlanta before the election, all bets are off. How many times does it have to be said to sink in. The Confederates did not have to win, they just had to not lose. And as shown, in Atlanta in July and August, their actions lost it for them earlier than it would have otherwise been. Believe it or not, that fact does NOT equate to 'they had no chance.' Just the opposite.

Saying the election was not and never going to be close is pure presentism. The election was not close, so it was never going to be close. Even if Atlanta did not fall before the election? So, Lincoln was leading 55% to 45% in August. It's amazing how far off the guys were who were tracking it. But oh yes, you know better than them. The suggestion that losing Atlanta didn't change anything is untenable. That's just common sense.

Yah, sure, just "some trepidation." You know someone's argument is weak when they mischaracterize the situation in a way that benefits their assertions. All you need to do is read up on the situation in the summer of 1864, and then accept the fact that "some trepidation" was fear and panic. Believe it or not, us guys have not only read up on the election all we need to, we have also read up on the PRE-election period.

Again, it's not the Confederacy losing it. It's the Union not winning. Your second to the last sentence acknowledges this, but then it becomes fluff when you make your assertions. The last sentence suggests you think the Confederacy never had much chance. Because? They lost. The fact they lost doesn't mean they had no chance.

 

[damYankee]

Gentlemen, During the months leading up to the election nobody knew what the outcome would be.
Media was limited to print and rumor, and this was the first time in our countries history (hopefully the last) that the entire nation was swept up in an actual civil war.
Newspaper publishers were raking in loads of money and the more discontent they printed the more they sold, not to mention the Copperhead Presses that were pumping out pro Southern content.
It would be like modern day politics without the 24/7 media that we suffer with today.
It is easy to look back on an election held over one hundred years ago and see the obvious outcome, but as we see everyday on this forum, there are many who, even knowing the historical outcome will attempt to rewrite history.

 

[Pork Chop Phil]

A bit understated on your estimate of Sherman's casualties v Hood between July 20 and end of August 1864, Sir : that 7,600 should be 10,600 , according to Fox , and Hood about fifty percent more. Being picky, sorry : your argument wins my vote.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Gentlemen, During the months leading up to the election nobody knew what the outcome would be.
Media was limited to print and rumor, and this was the first time in our countries history (hopefully the last) that the entire nation was swept up in an actual civil war.
Newspaper publishers were raking in loads of money and the more discontent they printed the more they sold, not to mention the Copperhead Presses that were pumping out pro Southern content.
It would be like modern day politics without the 24/7 media that we suffer with today.
It is easy to look back on an election held over one hundred years ago and see the obvious outcome, but as we see everyday on this forum, there are many who, even knowing the historical outcome will attempt to rewrite history.

If modern polling had existed back then, Lincoln would not have been worried.

 

[BCS1973]

If modern polling had existed back then, Lincoln would not have been worried.

I wonder how one supports (or contests for that matter) your statement. Even today, sentiment surveys and real data (after the fact) don't always corroborate.

I wonder how much Fremont's candidacy was weighing on the mind of Lincoln and company in August of '64. Was that threat real, or in reality so small that it was just perceived, or was it basically ignored? I've not seen enough information to know if the question could ever be answered.

 

[damYankee]

If modern polling had existed back then, Lincoln would not have been worried.

24/7 news? On your 1863 TV? I-Pad? Twitter?
Dewy Wins!
Right there on the front page, held by Truman modern?
2016 election upset?
Newspapers and reporters have always been bias but the press during that era were brutal!

 

[damYankee]

I wonder how one supports (or contests for that matter) your statement. Even today, sentiment surveys and real data (after the fact) don't always corroborate.

I wonder how much Fremont's candidacy was weighing on the mind of Lincoln and company in August of '64. Was that threat real, or in reality so small that it was just perceived, or was it basically ignored? I've not seen enough information to know if the question could ever be answered.

I can only imagine the pressure any president lives with, but Lincoln?

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

24/7 news? On your 1863 TV? I-Pad? Twitter?
Dewy Wins!
Right there on the front page, held by Truman modern?
2016 election upset?
Newspapers and reporters have always been bias but the press during that era were brutal!

None of those examples were outside the margin of error. They also didn't see a 10+ point swing in two months, which is basically unheard of in US politics.

 

[Hammons]

Not to answer for wausaubob, as he is more than competent to express his thoughts himself, but at first blush it struck me he was expressing an opinion. Other people can have other opinions. What is acceptable to one may not be acceptable to another. So its not really a right or wrong answer, or subject to measurement.

That being said, I do think if you read this thread you will see that majority agree that the war was worth it, for all the stated reasons. If you want to see the reasons why people expressed the opinions they did, go back and read the thread.

I did.. I feel my posts might have been a bit sarcastic. I agree everyone has their opinion which everyone has the right to have and express freely. I think I am a bit in the "why ask" corner as we are arguing something completely from a perspective that cannot regardless of attempting to understand, fully understand.

Again apologies if this is not constructive to the conversation. No ill intent meant.

 

[JerryD]

If modern polling had existed back then, Lincoln would not have been worried.

I think you are making a pretty big leap of assumptions there. You have no basis for your statement, other than the results of the election that occurs months after Lincoln expressed his concern about losing. Voters attitudes shift all the time, and we can well imagine that the accepted historical narrative (that Union losses during the Overland Campaign in the Spring had demoralized the North, thus making Lincoln despondent of success, but Union victories in the summer and fall turned the tide and led to victory) is the accepted historical narrative for a reason; because its true.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

I think you are making a pretty big leap of assumptions there.

No bigger an assumption than saying if Lincoln lost the election the confederacy would have won (oh, ahem, excuse me…"not lost") the war.

But it's okay to make assumptions if you're playing the what if game for the losers.

Look, you guys can believe the war was neck and neck until Lincoln won the election. It certainly helps the topic of the ACW in general remain popular. But it's just another one of those aww gee shucks myths about the civil war that a lot of people like to believe, but didn't resemble reality. File it away with Johnny Clem and Black Confederates.

 

[uaskme]

No bigger an assumption than saying if Lincoln lost the election the confederacy would have won (oh, ahem, excuse me…"not lost") the war.

But it's okay to make assumptions if you're playing the what if game for the losers.

Look, you guys can believe the war was neck and neck until Lincoln won the election. It certainly helps the topic of the ACW in general remain popular. But it's just another one of those aww gee shucks myths about the civil war that a lot of people like to believe, but didn't resemble reality. File it away with Johnny Clem and Black Confederates.

If Lincoln had lost. It would have been a vote against the war. McClellan talked about a ceasefire. If that had happened, everything is up for grabs. Lincoln in perceiving his loss. Talked about how he might complete the war before leaving office. So, who knows.

No the Confederacy wasn't winning the war militarily. Often times some settlement takes place before military completion.

 

[wausaubob]

If modern polling had existed back then, Lincoln would not have been worried.whiu

While the prosecution of the war was probably the biggest issue, the rest of the Republican platform was very popular as the 1860 election had demonstrated.
The news did not move instantaneously to Washington. From there it spread at the speed of electricity. But it took some time for Farragut's success at Mobile Bay to reach New York. When it did, there was the inevitable spin. But the navy then only had to blockade two ports, Wilmington and Charleston.
Grant seems to have known the implications. He then made a major commitment to sever the best railroad leading south from Petersburg. It was if he knew the Confederates had a decreasing number of engines and he was determined to make the Confederates use indirect routes.
And its clear General Sherman never told Washington about his logistical preparations in Georgia. But his railroad attack proceeded about the same as railroad attacks in Virginia. His cavalry reached the railroad first and did some temporary damage, then he got a massive infantry presence on the railroad and the Confederates could not even save their engines and cars. The Virginia and Georgia operations were very similar.
Sherman enjoyed a numerical advantage, an equipment advantage and a massive logistical advantage. Neither Grant nor Sherman were given to speaking of their plans in advance of gaining the objective, so Washington did not know of the pending US success in Georgia.
And while all that was happening Grant was organizing a strike force in the Shenandoah Valley commanded by his most aggressive battlefield officer, and centered around his best infantry corps.

 

[Georgia Sixth]

How could the answer be, Yes, all the bloodshed and money spent was worth the benefits that flowed from the surrender at Appomattox and reunification?

Worth it? To my mind, few wars are worth the death and destruction. The ones that must be fought are the ones that defend against an existential threat. What amazes me is that the voices on both sides working for war and/or secession painted the other side as an existential threat, and that just doesn't ring true to me. The one unquestionable good outcome was the destruction of the slave system and the freedom of the former slaves, even if it resulted in a second class status. For that we can all be grateful, after the questionable decisions to go to war were made, that Lincoln used the elimination of slavery as a tool to weaken the confederacy. Thank God for that and for the 13th Amendment. The poisonous outcome of the war was the birth of crony capitalism that set the stage for the mega wealth of industrialists and the vast accumulation of wealth that continues to bedevil us to this day.

 

[wausaubob]

Worth it? To my mind, few wars are worth the death and destruction. The ones that must be fought are the ones that defend against an existential threat. What amazes me is that the voices on both sides working for war and/or secession painted the other side as an existential threat, and that just doesn't ring true to me. The one unquestionable good outcome was the destruction of the slave system and the freedom of the former slaves, even if it resulted in a second class status. For that we can all be grateful, after the questionable decisions to go to war were made, that Lincoln used the elimination of slavery as a tool to weaken the confederacy. Thank God for that and for the 13th Amendment. The poisonous outcome of the war was the birth of crony capitalism that set the stage for the mega wealth of industrialists and the vast accumulation of wealth that continues to bedevil us to this day.

The sacrifices extracted from the southern people by the Confederate government after July 1863 were inexcusable. But its hard to see how the US could have allowed the Confederate government to continue to exist.

 

[Hammons]

The sacrifices extracted from the southern people by the Confederate government after July 1863 were inexcusable. But its hard to see how the US could have allowed the Confederate government to continue to exist.

Well when looking at that point of extraction of death one could argue on each side. As has been argued before. The elimination of slavery in rebellious states but not those still in the "union" is a bit off-putting and shows his intent in my opinion. Others have expressed the same.

Was it the gradual steps to eliminate slavery in all states or was it to just help win a war?

What is worth? Lives, property, country, slavery, domestic products? What is each person's definition of worth?

 

[JerryD]

No bigger an assumption than saying if Lincoln lost the election the confederacy would have won (oh, ahem, excuse me…"not lost") the war.

But it's okay to make assumptions if you're playing the what if game for the losers.

Look, you guys can believe the war was neck and neck until Lincoln won the election. It certainly helps the topic of the ACW in general remain popular. But it's just another one of those aww gee shucks myths about the civil war that a lot of people like to believe, but didn't resemble reality. File it away with Johnny Clem and Black Confederates.

LOL...big difference between what you are claiming and what I was saying. For your benefit I will try to make it clear. I was responding to folks who make the definitive claim that the south under no circumstances could have won the war, and I was providing examples of what might have happened that might have changed the result. As things worked out, if Lincoln lost the election the south would have still lost, as Little Mac was running on a Peace through Victory campaign. Where you just don't get it is that I was NOT saying the south would win if Lincoln lost. I was saying there are alternative events that could have happened that might have resulted in a southern victory, maybe. I was refuting the know it alls who claim there was absolutely no way, never, nada, not gonna happen, impossible for the CSA to win. Which I think is wrong. No one can account for how things might have been different if things had been different. But I was in no way saying that any particular series of event would lead to victory. People who claim that is what I said are just completely missing the point. I was pointing out how every day events occurred where a different decision could have led down a different path, and perhaps one of those scenarios might have led to CSA victory. But to claim to know the unknowable is simply hubris.

You, on the other hand, are kind of like the know it alls who claim to know more than they really do know. You claim, in effect, that Lincoln was an idiot and you know more than he did, even though he lived at that time and was an astute politician, and that if only Lincoln had the benefit of polling he would have known what you appear to know and that is what the electorate of the US was thinking in May of 1864. And I don't think you actually know that. You may have an opinion on it, but to say Lincoln was an idiot and did not understand the situation and that you understand what the situation in the Spring and early summer of 186 better than Lincoln did strikes as the height of hubris. Lincoln was pretty sharp and I have to believe he had a pretty good idea where he stood. And I further think he had a much better understanding of the situation than you do.