When was the war lost?

[damYankee]

I asked this question in another thread and thought it would be a good question for it's own OP.

When did the situation facing the South come to that point when surrender and the salvage of as much of it's national treasure, private property and blood of it's youth outweighed any hopes of defeating the North?

 

[atlantis]

Makes me the no about what a wise man said about "the binis" in Nashville. Whenever anyone starts talking about how they are doing God's work, grab your wallet. God has never told anybody to make you any money.

it was convenient that people were color coded so you knew who it was ok to exploit.

Then you had the horrific trade of females for sex work where lighter color brought a higher price.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Then you had the horrific trade of females for sex work where lighter color brought a higher price.

Of course the " Fancy Girl " markets in Louisville & New Orleans were a gaudy feature of slaveholding. They were the equivalent of the Lamborghinis & Ferraris of modern day automobile markets.

In one especially lurid sale of a white skinned blue eyed young woman raised as a daughter of the family, she was stripped naked before a howling mob & brought a mind boggling $20,000.00 ( +/-) $100,000 in today's dollars. That when a skilled craftsman made $300.00 / year.

To continue the apt analogy, "Black Birders" prowled the Mississippi & Ohio rivers & post cities of Philadelphia & New York like gangs of car thieves. With the connivance of local authorities, likely young girls & boys were snatched & transported southward along the Reverse Underground RR.

There was nothing about how slaveholding actually worked that wouldn't gag a buzzard.

 

[Bruce Allardice]

Was Mexico really a free state when it declared its independence or when Spain agreed?

In the real world, the former (1821). Mexico's "declaration" was largely irrelevant compared to the reality that in late 1821, Spanish rule had collapsed in Mexico (and wasn't doing much better in Spain itself, BTW) and Mexico was self-governing. Spain's acquiescence to that reality (in 1836) is a mere historical footnote.

 

[Rhea Cole]

The Spanish didn't just blithely let Mexico go.

It would be useful to acknowledge the Bolivarian Revolution in South America that led to the collapse of Imperial Spanish rule in the Western Hemisphere. With the exception of Cuba, twenty years of fighting liberated people from Panama to Tierra del Fuego.

In 1861 Spain was a part of an alliance with France to take over Mexico. They had another priority & withdrew. See the second link for what happened.

This is a momentous history that I encourage all of our CWT friends to familiarize themselves with.

Read more here:

Link:

The South American Revolutions

This lesson will take us to South America as we learn about the major revolutions taking place across the continent.

historyguild.org

The Spanish made an attempt to reestablish their empire by taking over the Dominican Republic in 1861 - 1865. Read more here.

Link:

War of Restoration in the Dominican Republic 1861-1865

 

[OpnCoronet]

In the real world, the former (1821). Mexico's "declaration" was largely irrelevant compared to the reality that in late 1821, Spanish rule had collapsed in Mexico (and wasn't doing much better in Spain itself, BTW) and Mexico was self-governing. Spain's acquiescence to that reality (in 1836) is a mere historical footnote.

As a matter or relevance and Law, was the gov't claiming independence for Mexico actually governing any more of Mexico than had Spain?

 

[Rhea Cole]

As a matter or relevance and Law, was the gov't claiming independence for Mexico actually governing any more of Mexico than had Spain?

This map graphically answers the question. Under Spanish Imperial rule all of this territory was known as New Spain. It was ruled by a viceroy in Mexico City. The entire territory was handed over to the Mexican government.

It was James K. Polk's war to annex lebensraum for slaveholding that reduced Mexico to its current borders.

In the same vein, During the War of Jenkin's Ear Ogelthorpe expunged the Spanish from Georgia. He murdered the priests, burnt the missions, enslaved the Indians & claimed the land for himself.

Link:

https://saberandscroll.scholasticahq.com/article/28617-a-clash-of-empires-the-fight-over-the-georgia-colony-during-the-war-of-jenkins-ear.pdf

 

[damYankee]

View attachment 577794

This map graphically answers the question. Under Spanish Imperial rule all of this territory was known as New Spain. It was ruled by a viceroy in Mexico City. The entire territory was handed over to the Mexican government.

It was James K. Polk's war to annex lebensraum for slaveholding that reduced Mexico to its current borders.

In the same vein, During the War of Jenkin's Ear Ogelthorpe expunged the Spanish from Georgia. He murdered the priests, burnt the missions, enslaved the Indians & claimed the land for himself.

Link:

https://saberandscroll.scholasticahq.com/article/28617-a-clash-of-empires-the-fight-over-the-georgia-colony-during-the-war-of-jenkins-ear.pdf

That's really interesting but the question was focused on the American Civil War.

 

[Rhea Cole]

That's really interesting but the question was focused on the American Civil War.

At the risk of being pedantic, OpenCoronet's question refers to New Spain & Mexican territory at the time of Mexican independence.

The answer to your question, map of Mexico 1860 is here.

Link:

https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/323250

 

[genbeau]

Probably when LIncolns reelection became assured after the fall of Atlanta.

 

[genbeau]

I see this question as micro and macro. Micro as my man g low said when they burnt your house down well... There it is. Macro has to be when New Orleans fell.

no, on your new orleas point.

 

[Louisiana Jayhawker]

The emancipation proclamation declaration leading to increased use of negroes as members of armed forces eventually led to the collapse of the Confederacy.

 

[damYankee]

At the risk of being pedantic, OpenCoronet's question refers to New Spain & Mexican territory at the time of Mexican independence.

The answer to your question, map of Mexico 1860 is here.

Link:

https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/323250

My bad,

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

The emancipation proclamation declaration leading to increased use of negroes as members of armed forces eventually led to the collapse of the Confederacy.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Not in my opinion. The Union had sufficient numbers of troops without counting the Black soldiers (although the Blacks did fight well). It was just a matter of how the generals deployed and managed their large number of troops.

 

[Rhea Cole]

My bad,

No harm no foul. I tell my great-grand girls that it is called a dumb question only if you don't ask it. I should have included an 1860's map in the first instance. President Polk is a local personage, so his war for slaveholder's lebenscraum is probably more prominent than in other parts.

 

[JeffBrooks]

Not in my opinion. The Union had sufficient numbers of troops without counting the Black soldiers (although the Blacks did fight well). It was just a matter of how the generals deployed and managed

I must respectfully disagree. I think that, without the contribution of the 180,000 soldiers of African descent that served in the Union army, the South would have won its independence. Without them, you'd have to completely reimagine such decisive and important engagements as the Siege of Port Hudson, the Siege of Petersburg, and the Battle of Nashville. And, perhaps more importantly, you'd have to subtract from the front lines so many thousands of Union soldiers in the Atlanta Campaign and other operations, whose supply lines were guarded by and rear area garrisons were made up black troops. Their places would have to be taken by white troops. You would, in effect, be snuffing an army considerably larger than the Army of the Potomac out of existence.

Sure, the Union could have recruited 180,000 more white troops, given its large population. But that would have required more conscription and more money, thereby weakening political support for the war effort among the people of the North. In the all important year of 1864, that might have made all the difference.

 

[Rhea Cole]

I must respectfully disagree. I think that, without the contribution of the 180,000 soldiers of African descent that served in the Union army, the South would have won its independence. Without them, you'd have to completely reimagine such decisive and important engagements as the Siege of Port Hudson, the Siege of Petersburg, and the Battle of Nashville. And, perhaps more importantly, you'd have to subtract from the front lines so many thousands of Union soldiers in the Atlanta Campaign and other operations, whose supply lines were guarded by and rear area garrisons were made up black troops. Their places would have to be taken by white troops. You would, in effect, be snuffing an army considerably larger than the Army of the Potomac out of existence.

Sure, the Union could have recruited 180,000 more white troops, given its large population. But that would have required more conscription and more money, thereby weakening political support for the war effort among the people of the North. In the all important year of 1864, that might have made all the difference.

Don't forget the thousands of self liberated people who manned support elements. The first women enlisted by the U.S. military were self liberated nurses serving on the Hospital Ship Red Rover.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

I must respectfully disagree. I think that, without the contribution of the 180,000 soldiers of African descent that served in the Union army, the South would have won its independence. Without them, you'd have to completely reimagine such decisive and important engagements as the Siege of Port Hudson, the Siege of Petersburg, and the Battle of Nashville. And, perhaps more importantly, you'd have to subtract from the front lines so many thousands of Union soldiers in the Atlanta Campaign and other operations, whose supply lines were guarded by and rear area garrisons were made up black troops. Their places would have to be taken by white troops. You would, in effect, be snuffing an army considerably larger than the Army of the Potomac out of existence.

Sure, the Union could have recruited 180,000 more white troops, given its large population. But that would have required more conscription and more money, thereby weakening political support for the war effort among the people of the North. In the all important year of 1864, that might have made all the difference.

Hey Jeff, I appreciate your respectful disagreement. Nonetheless, I maintain the position that a well-managed Union force (inclusive total throughout the war) of about 1,948,948 (AFTER taking away 180,000 Black troops from the 2,128,948 Union total) could have defeated the Confederate force of 750,000 to 880,000 (depending on the estimate used).
Note: the Union total is of individuals, not counting reenlistments which would yield about 2,677,000.
You are correct about the need for superior numbers to maintain logistics certainty in enemy territory.
The question becomes: Were the Union generals good enough?

 

[wausaubob]

Hey Jeff, I appreciate your respectful disagreement. Nonetheless, I maintain the position that a well-managed Union force (inclusive total throughout the war) of about 1,948,948 (AFTER taking away 180,000 Black troops from the 2,128,948 Union total) could have defeated the Confederate force of 750,000 to 880,000 (depending on the estimate used).
Note: the Union total is of individuals, not counting reenlistments which would yield about 2,677,000.
You are correct about the need for superior numbers to maintain logistics certainty in enemy territory.
The question becomes: Were the Union generals good enough?

How did the flow of the war change dramatically in June and July 1863? The US forces successfully employed their huge advantage in gunboats and water transport in the Mississippi campaign. Then US ability to manufacture more artillery, move more artillery and produce more and better munitions was decisive at Gettysburg. After those two campaigns. it should have clear that enormous manufacturing advantage of the US, combined with its larger and more diverse agricultural economy were going to be decisive. After that the Confederate leadership were weakening the Confederacy without gaining any bargaining power.