Posted on 08/25/2008 9:11:18 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
Divisions in the North were produced by the Democrat Party, Copperheads. They led the Draft Riots in New York which slaughtered any Black the rioters got their hands on even trying to murder the children in an orphanage.
As for as I no the numbers of Northerners enlisting in the CSA army were lowerer than the reverse.
Grant’s “butchery” does not approach that of Lee’s at Gettysburg and his continuation when it was clear the war was lost. Nor does it approach that imposed by the defenders of a dead economic structure.
Whining is not a very convincing argument.
Shelby Foote says pretty much the same thing in his notes at the end of Vol. 1 of his trilogy.
The Mexican War was just as divisive.
In terms of geographic control the Confederacy was about 20% of its original size when Lee surrendered.
In many areas of the South, the Confederacy was a two year phenomenon, not a four year one.
Back to the concept of the book. There were many disagreements within the CSA government, the state representatives, and local politicians. They fought over troop deployments, funding, resrouces, etc. CSA management was not exactly united. Anyway, I don't see anything new with this.
W.C. Davis and the Bruce Catton have done a thorough job documenting the dynamics and politics during the formation of the CSA.
Where did you get the idea that “everyone” opposed it? Nothing in this thesis claims that.
11 days new
What do you think gents? I’ve got a list of 20+ books so far so why not make it 21+ or so?
Sherman's taking of Atlanta in 1864 probably clinched Lincoln's victory in his bid for re-election. A clear victory in Iraq during the next two months will do likewise for McCain.
Not familiar with Williams' work, but I can recommend other sources that well researched. But I would stick with Bruce Catton's Coming Fury where he covers the Democrat and GOP conventions. You will read about the splinters in the Democratic party and Lincoln's agents brokering for the nomination.
William C. Davis' Look Away is a good source with a negative view of the CSA government. He covers the problems, the politics, the issues, with documented resources. Southern-folk may not like this one and it's a bit wordy.
Also, someone mentioned Foote's work which I believe you are working through now.
It’s on my ‘to do’ list. First I’ve got to finish Noah Andre Trudeau’s new book on Sherman’s campaign in Georgia.
Joesph Glatthaar touches on a lot of these same points - supplies, desertion, treatment of local population - in his book “Lee’s Army: From Victory to Collapse”.
Grant was a wise enough strategist to know that numbers could only be a positive factor if he harried the enemy enough to prevent him from adopting static defenses that would neutralize his numerical advantages.
So his strategy was not just mindless attrition or butchery - it was a strategy of continuous tactical engagement for the strategic purpose of eliminating the adversary's defensive advantage.
Had Lee been a commander of average rather than exceptional skill, the casualties lists would have been much more even.
Back to the concept of the book. There were many disagreements within the CSA government, the state representatives, and local politicians. They fought over troop deployments, funding, resrouces, etc. CSA management was not exactly united. Anyway, I don't see anything new with this.
That isn't the book's thesis, although you are absolutely right to say that neither the divisions within the Confederate government nor the book's actual thesis are new.
The book's thesis is not just that there was dissension among Confederates, but that there were plenty of Southerners who did not consider themselves Confederates - these were not Southerners who were merely dissatisfied with the policies or actions of the Confederate government, but Southerners who were opposed to the existence of the Confederate government in the first place.
Plenty of Southerners refused to sign up to fight their country - i.e. the United States. There were plenty of white non-slaveholding farmers in Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama who had a lot more in common with white non-slaveholding farmers in Wisconsin, Indiana and Pennsylvania than they had in common with the wealthy planters in Charleston who started the whole secession business.
In many areas, the "Home Guards" were little more than common criminals.
In many areas, the “Home Guards” were little more than common criminals”
The same held true for the North, as well...
In many places, ESPECIALLY Kansas, Missouri, and Illinois, just being CALLED a Southern Sympathiser was cause for a late-night hanging...
In Kansas and Missouri that went both ways. Being pegged as a Unionist to the wrong people was usually fatal.
As for Illinois, I don't know about that. Down state was a hot-bed of Copperhead loyalties, especially in Little Egypt.
I don't think that the author is implying that everyone down South was for the rebellion. On the other hand, he does appear to destroy the oft-repeated Southron myth that everyone was for it, too. The confederacy was actually a ramshackle structure of divided loyalties from day one.
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.