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?

 

[OpnCoronet]

By April 11, 1861, the Confederate States had in practical terms already achieved their goal--independence. Sure, the north didn't acknowledge this independence, nor did the "international community," but so what? Those are just words. And the European nations would have eventually recognized Confederate independence, just as they had acknowledged Brazil's and Peru's and Mexico's.
A war could only end that independence. Which is why the CSA should never have fired on Fort Sumter. Why start a war when you can only gain 3 acres of ground even if you win? There's no upside to the Confederacy in a war.

Proclaiming yourself independent, does not make it so eithe

In Revolutions, your are actually independent, only if everyone agree. If the other side does not agree that you are independent, then you must make them agree.

 

[Piedone]

I have viewed the confederate gov't singularly united on t issue of slavery and independence, i.e., moreso than the avg. citizen of the confederacy, their Congress and its leadership were much more committed to Slavery as the cornerstone of southern independence than even Jefferson Davis.

I also do think so.
They were - with a relevant margin - themselves owners of several hundred enslaved
or at least were deriving from families that owned really sizeable plantations
hence they had a big stake in unhindered existence of slavery...

I only ask myself if they themselves really believed in (their own?) propaganda claims about even plantation slavery being generally benignant?

Sometimes people can believe things and in reality act quite to the contrary without recognizing a contradiction...
Sometimes delegating the more dirty work to others (foremen, overseers)
and/or living secluded from it
does help a lot with one´s own rationalisations….

Somehow I always thought Jefferson Davis really believed in a concept of benignant slavery….

 

[Belfoured]

You mean the city on the Volga.

We have a winner.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Proclaiming yourself independent, does not make it so eithe

In Revolutions, your are actually independent, only if everyone agree. If the other side does not agree that you are independent, then you must make them agree.

You bring up an interesting distinction. Jefferson Davis went to great pains to declare himself as a rebel, not a revolutionary.

He was rebelling against the U.S. government. His goal was reactionary. He didn't put it this way, but in effect he sought to reproduce the social & economic values of 1st Century Rome. As Alexander Stephens said, slavery was the keystone of the new state.

Washington was a revolutionary who fought to establish a whole new form of society & government.

That is why it wasn't just word play referring to Confederates as rebels. It was literally true.

 

[Piedone]

You bring up an interesting distinction. Jefferson Davis went to great pains to declare himself as a rebel, not a revolutionary.

He was rebelling against the U.S. government. His goal was reactionary. He didn't put it this way, but in effect he sought to reproduce the social & economic values of 1st Century Rome. As Alexander Stephens said, slavery was the keystone of the new state.

Washington was a revolutionary who fought to establish a whole new form of society & government.

That is why it wasn't just word play referring to Confederates as rebels. It was literally true.

Well, that is your informed opinion and assessment -
but it ist the assessment of a person in 2026.

People living then had different standards.
They were often influenced by rather rampant racism.
And especially the slaveholders would maybe even felt honoured, when their society would bring the classic Rom to anyone´s mind.

I deem it quite unquestionable that many secessionists as a matter of fact believed they followed in Washington´s footsteps
(whatever we people of 2026 may think about it….)...

 

[atlantis]

The war was lost in the west, hard to see how you turn it around once the union-controlled Tennessee up to the headwaters of the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers.

 

[Bruce Allardice]

Proclaiming yourself independent, does not make it so eithe

In Revolutions, your are actually independent, only if everyone agree. If the other side does not agree that you are independent, then you must make them agree.

Not true. Mexico was independent starting in 1821 by any historical measure, even though Spain didn't agree to that independence until 1836. "Agreement" is just another form of words that is trumped, in practice, by actual governing and actual control.
Similarly, the U.S. was independent from 1776 on, even though the British didn't agree till 1783. That's why we celebrate the 4th of July as Independence Day.

 

[OpnCoronet]

I also do think so.
They were - with a relevant margin - themselves owners of several hundred enslaved
or at least were deriving from families that owned really sizeable plantations
hence they had a big stake in unhindered existence of slavery...

I only ask myself if they themselves really believed in (their own?) propaganda claims about even plantation slavery being generally benignant?

Sometimes people can believe things and in reality act quite to the contrary without recognizing a contradiction...
Sometimes delegating the more dirty work to others (foremen, overseers)
and/or living secluded from it
does help a lot with one´s own rationalisations….

Somehow I always thought Jefferson Davis really believed in a concept of benignant slavery….

I certainly do agree that the human mind is perfectly capable of believing in many contradictory truths at the same time.

 

[OpnCoronet]

You bring up an interesting distinction. Jefferson Davis went to great pains to declare himself as a rebel, not a revolutionary.

He was rebelling against the U.S. government. His goal was reactionary. He didn't put it this way, but in effect he sought to reproduce the social & economic values of 1st Century Rome. As Alexander Stephens said, slavery was the keystone of the new state.

Washington was a revolutionary who fought to establish a whole new form of society & government.

That is why it wasn't just word play referring to Confederates as rebels. It was literally true.

True enough up to a point. I do not believe Davis considered himself as a Revolutionary, thus not a true Rebel.

To Davis et. al., Secession was not a rebellion or revolutionary. He claimed to believe the individual States of the Union had an inherent Right secede from the Union if they chose. Secession being one of the 'certain' inalienable rights possessed by all human beings as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, among which only 3 are actually specified, but which Davis and others assumed was included in those unnamed.

Davis was leading his people into a Revolutionary War for a political theory that might or might not exist in reality Much as Washington did over 80 years before, the difference being the United States proved their theory by winning their war for independence and the confederacy did not.

 

[OpnCoronet]

The war was lost in the west, hard to see how you turn it around once the union-controlled Tennessee up to the headwaters of the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers.

Very true, but the loss of Tn. could be seen as a portent of ultiment defeat, to the discerning mind of one who diligently followed the events of the war. But to the avg. citizen no directly involved in the battles who live on hope, I think they would need more direct evidence of their war being a failure, i.e.,I think their minds would be more impressed by the results of the loss of Tennessee. The loss of Atlanta and Ga., being the direct result of the loss of Tn.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Not true. Mexico was independent starting in 1821 by any historical measure, even though Spain didn't agree to that independence until 1836. "Agreement" is just another form of words that is trumped, in practice, by actual governing and actual control.
Similarly, the U.S. was independent from 1776 on, even though the British didn't agree till 1783. That's why we celebrate the 4th of July as Independence Day.

If Mexico had lost its war for independence at any point in its war for independence after 1821, would later historians say Mexico was independent in 1821?

Lincoln proclaimed American Independence existed with the signing of the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. Was that true, as a matter of law, or was it when George III and Parliament agreed?

Winners get to set dates as they will, losers do not.

 

[Rhea Cole]

True enough up to a point. I do not believe Davis considered himself as a Revolutionary, thus not a true Rebel.

To Davis et. al., Secession was not a rebellion or revolutionary. He claimed to believe the individual States of the Union had an inherent Right secede from the Union if they chose. Secession being one of the 'certain' inalienable rights possessed by all human beings as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, among which only 3 are actually specified, but which Davis and others assumed was included in those unnamed.

Davis was leading his people into a Revolutionary War for a political theory that might or might not exist in reality Much as Washington did over 80 years before, the difference being the United States proved their theory by winning their war for independence and the confederacy did not.

I just followed what Davis said numerous times. The "right to hold other human beings as property" is profoundly reactionary. The Confederate constitution is a modified version of the U.S. High on the agenda of both the national & state governments was to adopt existing laws & regulations. There was nothing revolutionary in the agenda of the seceding governments.

The purest statements of why & what the agenda of the seceding states is in Dr. Charles Dew's 'Apostiles of Disunion.'

The initial seceding states published an official proclamation explaining the break with the union to their own populace. They also appointed commissioners that were ambassadors to slave state governments still in the Union.

Dew wisely lets the states & commissioners speak for themselves. It is Commissioner Benning's terse one sentence declaration of why Georgia seceded that I quote often.

Should anyone want to know how the seceding states explained their actions, Dr Dew's book is a unique resource. It is still in print.

Link:

Apostles of Disunion - UVA Press

Charles Dew’s Apostles of Disunion has established itself as a modern classic and an indispensable account of the Southern states’ secession from the

www.upress.virginia.edu

 

[east_beast]

Honestly? When the Union didn't come to the bargaining table after Bull Run. The Confederacy was never winning a long drawn out war.

 

[RebelWeber]

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?

September 18, 1862

 

[wausaubob]

War is essentially irrational. People believe things about a war that are separated from reality.
By the time the US occupied Vicksburg and the news of that result reached the Confederates in Port Hudson the eventual outcome of the war was obvious.
After that point, the longer the war continued, an ever diminishing portion of the slave labor economy would survive. A back and forth tactical struggle could continue, but the longer the war went on, the portion of the Confederacy that might gain an armistice would be diminished.
The US industrial base was untouched, and growing. The US capacity to build warships and steam transports gave the US an advantage the Confederacy could not match.
The US had the much larger and more diverse agricultural economy. It could produce horses and mules much faster than the Confederacy, as well as the oats and hay that kept the livestock going.
Did people in the Confederacy have a irrational hope that some period of independence could be achieved? Probably they did. But after July 1863 the US could simply wait out the Confederacy. Eventually, after an unknown number of election cycles, a new reunification party would win the presidency and the Congress. When the will to win was revitalized, the means were there to build bigger, faster ships, more powerful railroads, and more methods to deploy the US advantage in artillery and munitions.

 

[Bruce Allardice]

If Mexico had lost its war for independence at any point in its war for independence after 1821, would later historians say Mexico was independent in 1821?

Lincoln proclaimed American Independence existed with the signing of the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. Was that true, as a matter of law, or was it when George III and Parliament agreed?

Winners get to set dates as they will, losers do not.

Re: the Lincoln quote, you're quoting some nonexistent "law" again--words, rather than reality.
Re: Mexico, I can't even understand the point you're trying to make. I'd merely point out that Mexico's Independence was a reality after the Plan of Iguala. And that Spain's possession of San Juan de Ulloa, and Spain's refusal to formally recognize Mexico's independence for more than a decade after 1821, is irrelevant to that reality.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

We are getting off topic, but the Brits had legit reasons for not recognizing the CSA that went beyond whether they thought it would win or not. They knew that if they recognized the CSA, and the USA felt that that Great Britain had been decisive in making the USA lose the war, then the USA would be forever an enemy of Great Britain, and Great Britain wanted to avoid that. Far better for the CSA to win its independence without British help. They thought the CSA might survive the war, but they knew the USA would. Why **** off the USA unnecessarily if the CSA may not even survive? They wanted to be friends to both if both survived the war, but did not wish to put US relationship at risk for a country that might not even survive. Neutrality made much more sense for them, no matter who won the war.

Well stated, @JerryD.

 

[OpnCoronet]

I just followed what Davis said numerous times. The "right to hold other human beings as property" is profoundly reactionary. The Confederate constitution is a modified version of the U.S. High on the agenda of both the national & state governments was to adopt existing laws & regulations. There was nothing revolutionary in the agenda of the seceding governments.

The purest statements of why & what the agenda of the seceding states is in Dr. Charles Dew's 'Apostiles of Disunion.'

The initial seceding states published an official proclamation explaining the break with the union to their own populace. They also appointed commissioners that were ambassadors to slave state governments still in the Union.

Dew wisely lets the states & commissioners speak for themselves. It is Commissioner Benning's terse one sentence declaration of why Georgia seceded that I quote often.

Should anyone want to know how the seceding states explained their actions, Dr Dew's book is a unique resource. It is still in print.

Link:

Apostles of Disunion - UVA Press

Charles Dew’s Apostles of Disunion has established itself as a modern classic and an indispensable account of the Southern states’ secession from the

www.upress.virginia.edu

I completely agree that Davis and the confederate leadership in the south, Government, Social Economic and even to an extent Religious, viewed Southern Independence in reactionary terms. They were looking to the past for their inspiration in continuing their advance into the future, i..e., they could not really see the future except through the lens of the primacy of Chattel Slavery to the survival of what they considered their unique southern way of life. .

 

[OpnCoronet]

Re: the Lincoln quote, you're quoting some nonexistent "law" again--words, rather than reality.
Re: Mexico, I can't even understand the point you're trying to make. I'd merely point out that Mexico's Independence was a reality after the Plan of Iguala. And that Spain's possession of San Juan de Ulloa, and Spain's refusal to formally recognize Mexico's independence for more than a decade after 1821, is irrelevant to that reality.

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

 

[Rhea Cole]

I completely agree that Davis and the confederate leadership in the south, Government, Social Economic and even to an extent Religious, viewed Southern Independence in reactionary terms. They were looking to the past for their inspiration in continuing their advance into the future, i..e., they could not really see the future except through the lens of the primacy of Chattel Slavery to the survival of what they considered their unique southern way of life. .

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.