The Cyclorama, Battle of Atlanta and Gone with the Wind

Canada Free Press ^ | August 25, 2014 | Calvin E. Johnson, Jr.

[BroJoeK]

Sherman Logan: "does anyone seriously think Union public opinion would allow all that land they had conquered at immense cost in blood and money to just be handed back in negotiations?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't McClellan's Democrats the "peace party" (the George McGoverns & Barak Obamas) of the 1864 election?

Would not a McClellan election as president have resulted in serious negotiations, in which the Confederacy's First Principle -- slavery -- would be preserved?
Is there any evidence that McClellan intended to be hard-nosed tough on that issue?

And isn't it usually said that Sherman's and Sheridan's victories gave northerners the boost in confidence -- needed during Grant's stalemate at Petersburg -- to reelect Lincoln over McClellan?

[RedStateRocker]

And then there was General Reynolds (my last name, also).... The family joke is that his last words were “Those bastards couldn’t hit the side of a barn at this.....”

[Sherman Logan]

All quite correct. But methinks CSA and USA would have had utterly different ideas of what negotiations would look like.

As I said the CSA would want its conquered lands back, and might even demand MO and KY, both of which they considered part of the Confederacy.

The USA, OTOH, in my opinion would be very unwilling to give back the conquered territory, and especially the land along the MIssissippi.

IOW, the most the each side would be willing to give up would be far below the minimum the other side would be willing to accept. In such a case, how can negotiations possibly succeed?

In fact, the Democratic platform in 1864, if I remember correctly, had one of its slogans as: “The Union as it was, the Constitution as it is.” With the notion that the seceded states would quietly return if they were offered the right concessions. This of course was untrue, the CSA would settle for nothing but independence.

My point is that just because both sides want a war to end doesn’t mean it will necessarily do so. Which is a good reason not to get into wars.

[BroJoeK]

IIRC the Lincoln movie showed negotiations with the Confederacy and their bottom line was protecting slavery.
Other provisions might ordinarily derive from battlefield conditions and which side was more eager to end the war.
With Democrats in charge that would certainly be the Union, and so Confederates could expect to get pretty much what they wanted.

IMHO, of course.

[Sherman Logan]

We will never know. I am sticking to my position, however.

Haven’t seen the Lincoln movie, but there was one negotiation with Lincoln that attempted to end the war.

Never got anywhere at all, since the USA insisted on discussing how to bring peace to our common nation and an end to slavery, while the CSA wanted to hold negotiations as a recognized foreign country. Which would of course have conceded up front exactly what they’d been fighting against for several years.

[BroJoeK]

"...the USA insisted on discussing how to bring peace to our common nation and an end to slavery, while the CSA wanted to hold negotiations as a recognized foreign country."

Point is, in 1864 Democrats wanted to negotiate peace and end the war (sound familiar?).
Had they won the election, they would soon have learned the only way to "end the war" was to accept Confederate terms.
And if Democrats believed the war to be -- overall -- a stalemate unlikely to produce victory, i.e., Grant at Petersburg, then it is entirely likely they would do what it is that Democrats just naturally want to do -- surrender to our enemies.
It's in their political DNA -- they can't control it, and can't stop themselves from doing it.
Historically since then, when you elect Democrats, you're going to get something other than total victory.
FDR being the huge exception which proves the general rule, and a reason Republicans at least grudgingly respect him.

But of course, we are deep into counter-factual scenarios, a land where most anyone can claim most anything... ;-)

Thanks for playing!

[Sherman Logan]

Historically since then, when you elect Democrats, you're going to get something other than total victory. FDR being the huge exception which proves the general rule

I'm not sure that's a good claim. Madison was president in the War of 1812, which admittedly was pretty much a draw, unknown to most American because of the spectacular victory of A. Jackson at New Orleans. Madison was arguably a Democrat and is often claimed as such. Though the line of descent isn't at all clear that far back.

Mexican War - James K. Polk. Democrat, total victory.

Civil War - Lincoln - Republican, total victory. Democrats controlled the losing side.Spanish-American War - McKinley - Republican, total victory.

WWI - Wilson -Democrat, total victory (sort of), and America was very much a junior partner in the winning coalition.

WWII - FDR - Democrat, total victory.

Korea - Truman - Democrat, stalemate. But it was a victory in that the enemy gained no ground as a result of the war.

Vietnam - LBJ - Democrat and Nixon - Republican, total loss.

By count, that makes Democrats president in 5.5 wars (or 4.5, depending on how you classify Madison. Of these six wars, three were outright victories, two were a draw, and one was outright defeat.

Republicans were president during 2.5 wars. Of these three wars, two were victories and one was a defeat.

[x]

Or does anyone think CSA public opinion would have allowed its government to accept anything but return of all its sacred soil?

Good question. By 1864, I don't think public opinion was very adamant on that point. People were already sick of the war.

But, how could you divide a state like Tennessee, say? Would the pieces really make up something like a state? Would you really cede parts of Florida or Mississippi or Louisiana simply because Northern troops were there, even if there was no significant (White) support for the Union?

Without getting into a "sacred soil" argument I wonder if the 19th Century mind would really accept the kind of long truce and irregular borders that issued from the Korean War.

My suspicion is that politically active people may well have been "all or nothing" in their thinking even if the powerful emotions had dissipated. The alternative of an armistice that simply let each side hold on to what it had just wasn't part of the mindset.

In particular, Davis was probably too rigid and too inept to take good advantage of the opportunity of a negotiated settlement if it arose.

[x]

As I said the CSA would want its conquered lands back, and might even demand MO and KY, both of which they considered part of the Confederacy.

With Davis in charge they might well have, but a more rational regime would have recognized that Missouri and Kentucky were indeed a Lost Cause for the Confederacy by 1864. That wouldn't preclude the possibility of a later war to win back land that had been lost or that was never actually a part of the CSA.

I wonder if the Democrats actually could have made peace. It wasn't beyond the realm of possibility that if McClellan won the North could have been torn apart itself in the conflict between those who wanted to continue the war and those who wanted a settlement.

[Sherman Logan]

Yup, I suppose that would have been possible. However, here’s an excerpt from McClellan’s letter accepting the nomination.

“f a frank, earnest and persistent effort to obtain those objects should fail, the responsibility for superior consequences will fall upon those who remain in arms against the Union. But the Union must be preserved at all hazards.

I could not look in the face of my gallant comrades of the army and navy, who have survived so many bloody battles, and tell them that their labors and the sacrifice of so many of our slain and wounded brethren had been in vain; that we had abandoned that Union for which we had so often periled our lives.

A vast majority of our people, whether in the army and navy or at home, would, as I would, hail with unbounded joy the permanent restoration of peace, on the basis of the Union under the Constitution without the effusion of another drop of blood. But no peace can be permanent without union.”

Doesn’t exactly sound like somebody anxious to march back out of the +50% of the CSA already conquered.

http://historum.com/american-history/70552-george-mcclellan-presidential-candidate.html

[Nuc 1.1]

Concur.

[Nuc 1.1]

I often wonder what would have happened has Davis heeded Tooms counsel and not fired upon Fort Sumter? Have a good holiday FReeper.

[BroJoeK]

BJK: "Historically since then, when you elect Democrats, you're going to get something other than total victory."

Sherman Logan: "I'm not sure that's a good claim.
Madison was president in the War of 1812, which admittedly was pretty much a draw..."

FRiend, I did say, "since then", meaning since the time of the Civil War.
But since you mention Madison's War of 1812, there's an example of a Democrat total screw-up -- started a war they were totally unprepared for, for reasons which were other than those stated, as was revealed by their first fiasco adventures -- invasions of Canada.
Suffering one defeat after another, they finally settled for terms which could well have been achieved by negotiations alone -- no war.
That's a Democrat for you.

In the case of Polk's Mexican War, we are at least talking about an ante-bellum Southern Democrat, and that makes a difference.
Today their descendants are (uneasy) Republicans.

During the Civil War, Democrats were the party of peace & negotiations, not victory.

From the Civil War on (excepting FDR), our Democrats' war ideal has been "peace without victory".

In World War I under Democrat President Wilson, his expressed goal (i.e., 14 points) was that proto-typical Democrat ideal of "peace without victory".
At Versailles, he did what he could to limit punishment of Germany, on the theory it would make them like us.
That only succeeded in making Germany's drive towards "round two" easier.

FDR's Second World War is the exception, but I would argue that's only because he was part of Wilson's wartime administration (Undersecretary of the Navy), and saw first hand the results of being "too nice" to an only partly defeated enemy.
FDR was therefore determined not to make the same mistakes.

Korea came during Democrat Truman's administration which first announced it would not defend Korea, then sent inadequate forces into defeat, until saved by MacArthur at Inchon, who Truman then fired because, as MacArthur said, "there is no substitute for victory".
Oh yes, if you're a Democrat, there's always a better substitute -- "peace without victory" suits you just fine.

Of course, Eisenhower did not reverse Truman's policy -- just as he did not abolish Social Security.
Eisenhower was your typical "moderate Republican" who held back on major new government programs, but did not roll-back Democrat gains.

In Vietnam, we had Democrat Johnson at the front end, playing the role of President Madison, getting us into a war he was not prepared to win.
And we had the Democrat Congress under President Ford at the other end, withdrawing all US support from the Saigon government, just in time for the third (or was it fourth?) major Northern offensive, this time -- meeting no serious resistance from either South Vietnam or the US -- rolled in to easy victory.

Which brings us to Iraq, for which the media memory-hole has totally swallowed up the fact that Democrats like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton urged Republican President Bush into, then as Democrats must do, abandoned him when the going got tough.
Nevertheless, Bush sloughed through it, and left his successor, Hussein Obama with a "win".
But because he's a Democrat, "win" was too good for Obama, and he has now turned Iraq into total chaos.

Here's my conclusion: Republicans are successors of George Washington, Federalists, Whigs, usually the minority and are the party of limited but responsible general government at home, victory when wars become necessary.

Democrats have nearly always been the majority party of special interests, whose interests they put ahead of Constitutional limitations, and even the nation's welfare (i.e., Civil War).
In wars the Democrats often rush in, unprepared, but then become discouraged and look for "peace without victory".

Do you disagree?

[BroJoeK]

Nuc 1.1: "what would have happened has Davis heeded Tooms counsel and not fired upon Fort Sumter?"

My opinion, just an opinion, is that the Confederacy could have seceded peacefully, if with patience and forbearance they had been determined not to provoke military confrontations.
If they had worked with Congress to agree on terms and conditions for secession, it all could have -- indeed should have -- been done without bloodshed.

But, as some have even posted on these threads, what Confederates really wanted was a chance to bloody up those haughty abolitionist New Englanders, who fire-eaters believed had insulted their honor and needed a sound beating.

Peace with the United States was not their goal.
Victory, honor & independence was.

[Sherman Logan]

Here's my conclusion: Republicans are successors of George Washington, Federalists, Whigs, usually the minority and are the party of limited but responsible general government at home, victory when wars become necessary.

Finding similarities between political issues and parties over time is really, really difficult.

For instance, I think it's pretty clear the post-Jackson Democrats were the party, in general, of limited federal government as compared to the Whigs. The Democrat-Republicans before them were the party of limited federal government as compared to the Federalists.

I agree 100% as to the appalling initial record of the US Army in the War of 1812. Although it should be noted a good bit of it was due to the very good fighting abilities of the British soldiers and their Anglo-Canadian allies, most of whom were the sons and grandsons of Revolutionary Tories taking their revenge.

It's not really fair to say 1812 was exclusively a Democrat war, as shortly after the war the Federalists disappeared, leaving only one party, the Democrat-Republicans, who shortly split into the Democrats and Whigs. The Republicans of today are in some sense descended from the anti-Jackson wing of the DRs, which became the Whigs, whereas the Democrats are descended from the pro-Jackson wing of the DRs. But the analogy falls apart to a good extent when examined too closely.

The best analogy I've seen to the two-party system over the centuries is one of Ins vs. Outs.

For pretty much our whole history we've had one party catering to those who saw themselves as Ins: Federalists, Whigs, Republicans. The other party, Democrat-Republicans and then Democrats, saw themselves as Outs in American society: immigrants, Catholics, farmers, southerners, workers, etc., or, in recent decades intellectuals, progressives, feminists, blacks, immigrants, gays, etc.

Thus the Democrats have always been a coalition of those who are, or believe they are, excluded from a full share in American society. Thus in opposition to it to some extent.

[BroJoeK]

Sherman Logan: "Finding similarities between political issues and parties over time is really, really difficult."

Much depends on how, exactly, you look at it.
Agreed, we have always been encouraged to think as you say, using the notion that historical political alignments are irrelevant to today's conditions.
But I think, with the right perspective, things look quite different.

Sherman Logan: "For instance, I think it's pretty clear the post-Jackson Democrats were the party, in general, of limited federal government as compared to the Whigs."

Granted that Jackson opposed the Second Bank of the United States, on constitutional & other grounds -- as John Taylor of Caroline famously said: "...if Congress could incorporate a bank, it might emancipate a slave".

One problem with this argument is that ante-bellum Southern Democrats had no problem -- none -- expanding Federal Government powers in defense of slavery.
The Compromise of 1850 and the Dred Scott Decision of 1857 come to mind.

Another is that we are talking about a time when the Federal Government in total was only 10% the size, relative to GDP, it is today -- 2%+ then versus 20%+ today.
So there was no Whig of that era -- none -- regardless of how radical or "Big Government" who could even imagine today's monstrosity, much less advocate it.
By today's standards, all of our ancestors, whether Democrat, Whig, Federalist, Republican or Know-nothings, all were vastly more "paleo-conservative" than even the most Neanderthal-conservatives of today.

In other words, it's meaningless to discuss today's "liberal" versus "conservative" ideas for our ancestors.
They were all conservatives.

What is meaningful is the fact that Democrats then, just as Democrats today, represented the special interests of privileged classes it worked to protect politically.
In those days it was Southern Slave-owners and Northern Immigrants.
Today it is descendants of slaves and immigrants.
In each case Democrats passed and enforce laws (then slavery, now "non-discretionary" spending for welfare) to benefit their voters.
It's what they do, it's who they are -- the greater national interest be d*mned.

Federalists, Whigs, Republicans -- usually the minority -- have always stood closer to our Founders' ideals of limited government and the greater national interest.
Even in the case of that Bank of the United States controversy, remember, many of our Founders (i.e., Alexander Hamilton) supported it, and none considered it a matter requiring Constitutional Amendment.
So it was not a question of "conservative" versus "liberal", but rather of keeping or rejecting an important institution established by our Founders.
In that sense, I'd say the old Whigs were "conservative", and Democrats, as usual: radicals.

Sherman Logan: "It's not really fair to say 1812 was exclusively a Democrat war, as shortly after the war the Federalists disappeared, leaving only one party, the Democrat-Republicans, who shortly split into the Democrats and Whigs."

Duh! Federalists disappeared because they opposed "Madison's War", began talking about New England secession, and were then humiliated by Jackson's victory at the Battle of New Orleans:

"Jackson fired his guns and Federalists began a runnin'
Down the Connecticut R. to Long Island Sound (two, three, four...)
Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
Federalists ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Connecticut to Long Island Sound."

Sherman Logan: "But the analogy falls apart to a good extent when examined too closely."

Actually, the whole thing makes perfect sense, when seen from the right perspective: Democrats have always been the party of special privileges for their own voters, our Founders' Constitution & greater national interests be d*mned.

Sherman Logan: "The best analogy I've seen to the two-party system over the centuries is one of Ins vs. Outs.
...The other party, Democrat-Republicans and then Democrats, saw themselves as Outs in American society: immigrants, Catholics, farmers, southerners, workers, etc., or, in recent decades intellectuals, progressives, feminists, blacks, immigrants, gays, etc."

Agreed, somewhat (northern family-farmers usually voted conservative, iirc) but most important not to leave out of the Democrat coalition: Southern Slave-holders.
Their legacy to this day helps define who & what Democrats are, imho, among other things: utterly ruthless in pursuit of their legal privileges.