Posted on 02/25/2007 7:43:34 AM PST by OrioleFan
Lee was an avid reader of Northern newspapers smuggled across the lines. From them he gleaned not only bits of military intelligence but also – and more important in this case – information about Northern politics and the growing disillusionment with the war among Democrats and despair among Republicans. One of Lee’s purposes in the Maryland invasion was to intensify this Northern demoralization in advance of the congressional elections in the fall of 1862. He hoped that Confederate military success would encourage antiwar candidates. If Democrats could gain control of the House, it might cripple the Lincoln administration’s ability to carry on the war. On September 8 Lee outlined his ideas on this matter in a letter to Davis. “The present posture of affairs,” Lee wrote, “places it in our power…to propose to the Union government…the recognition of our independence.” Such a proposal, coming when “it is in our power to inflict injury on our adversary…would enable the people of the United States to determine at their coming elections whether they will support those who favor a prolongation of the war, or those who wish to bring it to a termination.”
This desire to influence the Northern elections was one reason Lee gave serious thought to resuming the campaign in Maryland even after Antietam. That was not to be. Democrats did make significant gains in the 1862 congressional elections, although Republicans managed to retain control of Congress. But morale in the Army of the Potomac and among the Northern public plunged to rock bottom in the early months of 1863 ...
Antiwar Democrats in the North – self-described as Peace Democrats but branded by Republicans as treasonable Copperheads – became more outspoken and politically powerful than ever. Lee followed these developments closely.
"Complete nonsense. The South had exerted a disproportionate level of influence over the government and its power for the 80 years prior to the rebellion. If it had grown into an intrusive monster then it's because the Southern politicians grew it."
True.
Let us also note that since the civil war, the south was indispensible in the coalitions that elected Presidents Wilson, FDR, Truman, and LBJ. These 4 did much to expand the power of Federal govt.
If the voters in the south wanted to stop nationalization of politics they could have stopped supporting these types.
Prove it.
Golly gee whiz, Stainless, I'm just going to have to write this date down. Usually y'all dismiss McPherson as a socialist, borderline commie, hack historian. Now you're acting as if his work comes from a burning bush in his back yard.
"Gettysburg" by Stephen Sears, "Gettysburg: A Testing of Courage" by Noah Andre Trudeau, and "Retreat from Gettysburg: Lee, Logistics and the Pennsylvania Campaign" by Kent Masterson Brown all go into the reasoning behind Lee's plans. In addition to keeping his army intact by taking it away from Richmond, Lee planned on feeding his army in the North for the summer and accumulating enough food and supplies to maintain the army when he returned. Those were his reasons, not some diplomatic pipe dream. By the summer of 1863 nobody, with the possible exception of Jefferson Davis, was crazy enough to believe that the European powers would ever extend diplomatic recognition to the rebel government.
G'burg was ever intended as the "final battle" as stated in the title.
ever = never
While I have a great deal of respect for McPherson and his work, if Lee really believed that anything he did could result in diplomatic recognition, either from Lincoln or Europe, then he was as big a fool as Davis. Lee's reasons for moving North had nothing to do with diplomacy.
yea I think that's why it was done, but I think it was also a mistake as it put some damper on the claim the confederacy was only about succession. I think the confederacy was only about succsession, so that's why I think this was a mistake. That said, I'm happy they lost, as the Confederacy represented Big Government much greater than the Union, as they legally enslaved a fifth of their population, hardly the definition of a free society.
Agreed. The Confederacy was being killed out west.
Oh there's no doubt he expected to be pursued but he did not want to begin an engagement with the federals with only a part of his army.
In that case a shot out has to go to Maine native (I can't imagine why he's not talked about as much as Chamberlain /s) Oliver Howard.
"In light of how much was lost in the Civil War...what exactly would have been lost had the southern states been permitted to leave peacefully?"
War between the Confederacy and the USA would have continued for decades, over issues including:
1) escaping slaves
2) Midwest access to the lower Mississippi
3) which side got Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware
4) which side got California and the Southwest
There has been a lot of economics literature on this topic in the past few years. Jeffrey Hummel did an extensive economic analysis of slavery in the slaveholding states in his book Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men
The consensus is such that Harry Jaffa (there is no bigger Lincoln fan among Civil War historians) acknowledged at an Independent Institute debate with Tom Dilorenzo that:
And it was Lincoln’s belief—and I think the best economic analysis that we have of the American economy in the antebellum United States indicates—that if the expansion of slavery had been ended, and if it was no longer possible for surplus slaves to be sold from the old states to new territories, that the pressure within the states to adopt programs of emancipation would become great enough to do that.
If that truly was Lincoln's belief...why not let the South secede?
Prove what?
The Southern states chose to leave by starting a war so we'll never know.
Now that is absurd...the choice to wage war was entirely the north's
The decision to start the war was entirely the South's.
Early on, Lincoln very much hoped that he could induce the southern states to stay in the union by offering to assist in the subjugation of blacks in the south.
I think that the South was doing very well in the subjugating the blacks department long before Lincoln was elected.
A revisionist work written 140 years later is one thing. But I was thinking more along the lines of some quotes from the Southern leaders of the time indicating that they believed slavery was in the process of dying out. Surely you have some, don't you?
So, you weren't there when it didn't happen? That's good enough for me!
From Jacob Hoke, Union sympathizer in Pennsylvania who was there when it happened:
The three gentlemen from whom I have quoted-Early, Imboden, and Slingluff, - refer to the humane manner in which General Lee conducted his campaign in Pennsylvania in 1863, and claim that no wanton destruction of private property was made. This is freely admitted. With the exception of the railroad buildings in Chambersburg, and one or two buildings on the field of Gettysburg, no houses or barns were destroyed. Private property was taken for the use of the army, but, except in a few cases by stragglers, the regulations of seizure laid down by General Lee in general orders No. 72, and issued specially for the Pennsylvania campaign, were strictly observed. But while the comparative good conduct of the Confederates in Pennsylvania is admitted, it must also be remembered that there was no bushwhacking of them, nor depredations committed upon their trains.
In the olden days, when Portland had 4 and sometimes 6 newspapers, each paper made no pretense of objectivity. You knew from mast-head to classifieds the point of view you were getting.
Now when NYC has 3 newspapers, instead of 23, they claim objectivity. Laughable claim then, if anyone had been silly enough to make it, but no deception. Today, equally risible, and a massive deception.
Absolutely not so. At one point, it was his primary goal. But Lincoln realized from well before his inauguration that slavery was THE issue.\
Read the "Cooper Union Speech" that put Lincoln on the map as a serious candidate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.