Posted on 01/11/2014 11:16:07 AM PST by Davy Buck
However if one truly wants to make such a big deal out of what we call the armed conflict which occurred in America from 1861 to 1865 , and if its historical accuracy and honesty that one truly seeks, then I think Douglas Southall Freeman is, perhaps, the truest to historical accuracy in coining the proper term . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
Thank you for this intertesting research topic.
Heavens to Betsey! Please do not mention this during Black History Month. A good many free African-Americans fought for the Confederacy and a good many more, although still slaves, performed many military and semi-military services and considered the Yankees the "enemy."
But this is now a topic.
In re staff work and coordination:
It was, as you fairly point out, fairly wretched on both sides. However, perhaps we shouldn't hold these people to more modern standards. This was among the very first times in history such large armies were massed against each other over such wide areas, were able to use railroads, and had fairly accurate long-range artillery and infantry weapons. Put the controls were not yet developed. The General Staff concept had not really been invented yet. Also, coordination still depended upon nothing more advanced than the heliograph and telegraph lines of limited reliability between corps headquarters and Washington and Richmond. In actual combat, ,most of the orders were still transmitted by semaphore when possible, mounted couriers, and runners.
In fact, I'd wager that the General Staff concept was born because of the War of Secession.
Just curious, how do you think that ability is holding up for the former slaves?
It occurs to me that the moral argument in favor of slavery was that certain peoples were not capable of taking care of themselves, so it was best to have a more powerful force which would provide for them in exchange for what they could do for that more powerful force. Obviously a very self-serving position, but it sounds amazingly familiar to the DNC's stated position on blacks today, don't you think?
And yet the Republican party's appeal in 1860--indeed their founding principle-- was opposition to slavery and Lincoln won with a solid plurality of the popular vote and a handy majority of the electoral vote. For being largely indifferent at best to slavery, voters sure did turn out to vote for the anti-slavery candidate.
All excellent points. Something that has always irritated me is the propensity for historians and (on this site) posters to call generals of past wars idiots for not knowing how to tactically handle a new situation.
For instance, Grant was a butcher because he repeatedly assaulted fortifications. But he equally repeatedly tried to flank Lee, but flanking mostly only works when the flankee is incompetent, and that’s one thing Lee wasn’t.
Another example is WWI, where similar criticisms are made. I always want to ask Mr. Brilliant what his recipe for breaking the trench lines would be. Both sides came up with solutions, finally, in 1918, after trying many things that didn’t work. For the Germans it was Stormtroopers, for the Allies it was tanks. Turns out tanks are easier to produce and replace than Stormtroopers, so the Allies won.
One of the issues that amazed me about WBTS when I started reading more historical (as opposed to popular) histories was the extent to which feuding, backstabbing and glory-hounding by generals and even lower-ranking officers affected operations by both armies.
But I guess that went on in wars before and since. And in a war in which almost all the participants were volunteers and used to vigorous participation in politics, it seems inevitable that politics would make its way into the armies, which were of course reflections of their societies.
The government of Virginia that was recognized by the US government recognized the creation of West Virginia. What's the problem? When you consider that the other government was trying to wage war on the country it doesn't look like there was much of a problem with recognizing another government. If there was nothing wrong with breaking with the federal government, stealing federal property and making war with the rest of the country, what was so "sacred" about Virginia's control of the land and people on the other side of the mountains.
It is not at all clear that the Constitution bars a state from leaving the union. Indeed, the organization of the federal government reads like a confederation.
Does it really? There's plenty in there about Congress admitting new states, and nothing about states or peoples leaving.
What I'm saying is the slave-owners should have used their heads and exercised some restraint and courtesy, and recognized that they were and had been part of a country for almost a century, and that they perhaps owed some consideration to the country.
If they had worked within the system to achieve their goals there would have been no war. A procedural question was at the root of the conflict. They wanted the satisfaction of doing for themselves what should have been done in concert with the rest of the country. And look at the result.
You would lose. The Prussian General Staff dated to 1806. The U.S. Army general staff was a product of the Second World War.
Careful or SimpleMind will call you a Nazi LOL
Did there? Was there? Garrison and other abolitionists would have been happy dissolving their connection to the slave states. They thought of the federal government as part of the problem, not as a military arm of their movement.
John Brown, a full generation after 1830, wanted to arm the slaves and wanted the slaves and their allies to fight a war of liberation. He wasn't looking for any federal war of domination over the South, so far as I know.
To be sure, abolitionists had much animosity against the South, and many people prophesied an eventual war between the sections, but I don't see any long-held desire for a war of destruction against the slave-owners.
That looks a lot like a case of reading what eventually did happen back into the intentions of people years before. But -- as an example -- we could have very hostile feelings towards the Communists and they towards us without either side wishing for a war of destruction or annihilation against the other side.
In conflicts, both sides are often holding their own. When one side crumbles or is crushed you may think it was all part of a plan or the intention of the other side, but often enough they just have trouble keeping up their end of things.
Anyone who would begin an argument by pointing to the legitimacy of a non-representative puppet government created by the opposing force is either not to be taken seriously or to be scorned. Whichever you prefer doesn't matter. Your opinions appear too disingenuous to acknowledge.
Indeed, there were plenty of irregularities -- fraud and coercion -- in the secession process that people would still be arguing about today if the CSA had won.
Please avoid personal attacks. They simply convince others that you don't have actual winning arguments.
How would these “rights” of a state be described, except as powers?
The answer is the same. These people need the same tough love that Lincoln used to free the slaveholders from their addiction. Generation after generation of indolence, laziness and dependence is pathological. It is inexcusable.
In post 101 you wrote: "States don’t have “rights.” They have powers."
If a right is described as a power it is still a right. If states have powers which are descriptions of rights, then states have rights.
If you're defining a State as a ruling regime (which I'm not sure I would), the ruling regime (State) has a right to rule (with the consent of those ruled) which right may be described as a power but even so defined is still a right, therefore states have rights.
It was nothing about slavery. Most slaves and indentured servants for several centuries from England were white.
“In a military sense, the South never paid enough attention to the Western Theater of Operations. “
Part of that is surely due to the untimely loss of Albert Sydney Johnston at Shiloh- Johnston was considered by many to be as fine a commander as Lee.
You have a double-standard on the legitimacy of puppet governments. MO and KY were both border states with split populations. Tell me, did the CSA also have puppet governments for NY and VT? No they didn't.
The fundamental point was that the secession of West Virginia was exactly the same issue of self-determination as the secession of the CSA. On the issue of self-determination alone, you cannot logically reject one and accept the other, nor accept one and reject the other. There must be other elements brought into the discussion to make a differentiation.
The fact that Lincoln readily accepted the concept of WV put the lie to the position that the North was fighting a war based on the position that former bonds were inseparable.
As for the abolitionists, they had a Holy War against slavery (not a bad thing to have a Holy War against). No, the priority was not war with the South, but they were certainly ready to go that route. The problem for them was that there was no popular support for it, which led to actions like John Brown's attempt at subversion. Even well into the war, freeing the slaves was not an effective motivator to get young northern men to die by the thousands.
Why did Lincoln and his supporters consider it worth war to make half the country, who overwhelmingly wished to split bonds, submit to federal control? That is the key question. If it was because they felt a moral imperative to end slavery, then that is understandable and at least defensible; however, this issue of preserving the union is highly questionable. If you have to kill and crush a state to make it submit to your union, it is obviously a one-sided benefit. Much the same as the difference between the union of marriage and rape.
Why did Lincoln reject negotiating with the the secessionist states? When half the population of a country which is ostensibly of, for, and by the people have a huge issue with the other half, negotiating would seem reasonable.
What would the South have wanted? Likely Constitutional assurances on slavery and an end to restrictions on slavery in the new territories. I think Lincoln suspected that if this was presented as the key to preserving the union, that most northern states would accept it, as an alternative to war. Lincoln wasn't going to allow that to happen.
Of course, the North could have proffered to have a national solution to slavery, say a 10-20 year plan to purchase, apprentice, and free slaves. That was a popular notion, and the cost certainly would have been less than the war. It was a common notion because it is exactly what the British had done. The South might have rejected it, but it would have been worth exploring.
So why not negotiate? Likely because Lincoln and his supporters saw a need to strike while the iron was hot, the country was agitated, and not risk losing a chance to end slavery, whatever the means. But that's not what he sold to the Northern people who would do the dying.
Thus, I return to my original point. The North fought to do a good thing (end slavery) under the false and flawed pretense of preserving the union, while the South fought to do a bad thing (keep/expand slavery) under the false, but morally correct, pretense of self-determination. Although other lesser issues did exist, slavery was the only issue that drove the South to secede and the North to make war.
Turning it all over to the aggressive (impetuous?) Hood ... who was not at his best ... just about finished the Confederacy in the West.
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.