Floridians mark anniversary of joining the Confederacy

The Florida Times-Union ^ | January 10, 2011 - 12:00am | Kate Howard

[rustbucket]

It would be more correct to say that Lee lost his entire army in battle against Grant.

Here's another way of putting it. On average, when battling Grant, Lee's troops faced armies twice their size. The efficiency of the average Southern soldier in killing or wounding the enemy in battle against Grant's army was roughly three times better than the similar efficiency in Grant's army.

[rockrr]

It wasn’t explicitly written, but it was understood - although apparently not entirely accepted. The point of those amendments and votes were attempts to clarify the issue.

That is exactly what the south should have done - make sure that they were on solid legal ground before they incited a war.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The efficiency of the average Southern soldier in killing or wounding the enemy in battle against Grant's army was roughly three times better than the similar efficiency in Grant's army.

Which, in the historical context of respective casualties of offense vs. defense, is pretty much average. The 3:1 rule of the offensive power required for success against a defending force has been a basis for military doctrine going back into the mists of time.

[rustbucket]

To the people who lost the slaves it was an economic calamity. What was looming on the horizon regarding slavery was far worse for the South. The majority of Republican members of Congress had endorsed the Helper Book, which said:

... our purpose is as fixed as the eternal pillars of heaven; we have determined to abolish slavery, and -- so help us God -- abolish it we will! [page 187]

We believe it is, as it ought to be, the desire, the determination, and the destiny of this party [Republican] to give the death-blow to slavery; ... [page 234]

We are determined to abolish slavery at all hazards ... [page 149]

Using your average slave price of $1,000 and your figure for the number of slaves in Louisiana, that would translate to a future loss of $331,725,000 for Louisiana alone.

Here is another loss, one that was annual and current at the time of secession. The South was effectively paying a huge amount to the North because of the 1857 tariff. Kettle, in his book Southern Wealth and Northern Profits, estimates the sale of Northern manufactured items to the South in 1859 as being $240 million and imported goods to the South as being 106 million. The price of that $240 million of Northern manufactured goods was largely propped up by the tariff, and the tariff itself was paid on the 106 million of imported goods. So it would appear that the South was effectively paying one way or another the tariff rate on $346 million dollars of goods, or almost $60 million.

And worse was to come in that regard if the South stayed in the Union. The South (Texas Senator Wigfall actually) calculated they could no longer prevent a big increase in the transfer of money to the North that would result from the passage of the Morrill Tariff, given the makeup of the new Congress coming to power with Lincoln.

[rustbucket]

That is exactly what the south should have done - make sure that they were on solid legal ground before they incited a war.

I respectfully disagree. IMO, the South was on solid legal ground confirmed by the ratification documents and the Tenth Amendment.

The North, on the other hand, was relying on invisible ink written on the back of the Constitution. Given the violations of the Constitution by some Northern states with regard to the return of fugitive slaves, it seems obvious that written agreements by the North and claims of allegiance to the Constitution were not worth the paper they were written on.

[rustbucket]

Kettle = Kettell

[rockrr]

But they weren’t on solid ground - legally or morally. That is why other states objected. That is why we had a war. That is why SCOTUS rendered its opinion that affirms the unconstitutionality of secession - as practiced in 1861.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

To the people who lost the slaves it was an economic calamity.

But hardly sufficient a calamity to justify secession of the entire state.

The South was effectively paying a huge amount to the North because of the 1857 tariff.

The 1857 tariff was about the lowest in the history of the United States, was written by a southerner and was primarily passed with southern votes.

Just out of curiosity, since it seems that any tariff at all could have been perceived as unfair to the exporting south, just how do you propose the federal government should have raised money to pay for all those troops Texas required? And given that 25% of the army was already in Texas how many more troops would have been needd?

[cowboyway]

Maybe you just don't get out enough?

Considering the frequency and length of your posts one would conclude that perhaps it's you that doesn't get out enough.

[rustbucket]

But they weren’t on solid ground - legally or morally. That is why other states objected. That is why we had a war.

You are saying that Hamilton, Jay, and Madison were wrong in voting for their ratification documents and Madison was wrong in saying during the debates that:

There cannot be a more positive and unequivocal declaration of the principle of the adoption — that every thing not granted is reserved.

Where was the power to prohibit a state from seceding granted to the Federal government or to other states opposed to the secession of another state? It was not so delegated.

Here is Madison again, speaking about proposed amendments in Gales & Seaton's History of Debates in Congress:

The powers not delegated by this constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively. ...

I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superflous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.

That is why SCOTUS rendered its opinion that affirms the unconstitutionality of secession - as practiced in 1861.

I've addressed the ipse dixit (i.e., it's so because I say so) decision by a court filled with Lincoln appointees before. It was a court of the winning side in a war in an opinion by a member of Lincoln's cabinet who had been fighting the war against secession. Kind of shaky legal ground if you ask me.

I've read somewhere that the bulk of Northern people felt that states could secede. That was so until the attack on Fort Sumter. It was a voluntary Union after all.

Was Lincoln's need for revenue to run his government what drove him to provoke war? Were Northern cities that relied on their ports for their economy afraid that a lot of the imports would go directly to the South instead of to warehouses in the North where they were held tariff free until buyers were found? Did Northern banks threaten not to support bonds needed by the Federal government to cover its expenses? Did the North fear inflation and a severe balance of payments problem without the exports of Southern cotton?

All of those are potential reasons why the North might have fought a war to keep the South from leaving. But they are all reasons that serve the interests of the North at the expense of the South.

[rustbucket]

Just out of curiosity, since it seems that any tariff at all could have been perceived as unfair to the exporting south, just how do you propose the federal government should have raised money to pay for all those troops Texas required?

Texas wanted its own expenditures reimbursed for fighting Indians and Mexican bandits. The Rangers were more effective than the Federal troops in that regard. The Feds did eventually reimburse Texas for less than a third of their frontier fighting expenses for one year.

One source of income that the government was fully utilizing was the sale of government owned land in the plains and the west. The government preferred to give much of it away in return for five years (or more) worth of labor on the homesteads. This offer was aimed primarily at constituents of the Northern Congressmen and immigrants while excluding Southern slave owners who could have developed the land more quickly utilizing slave labor. The Feds could have charged more for the land and not given so much away for labor instead of cash, thereby reducing the need for so much tariff income.

[rustbucket]

“was fully utilizing” = “was not fully utilizing”

Must proof more carefully ...

[mac_truck]

Northern politicians wanted to keep the territories for white people, i.e., their constituents and voters.

Isn't that supposition at odds with the personal liberty laws these same northern states passed to protect free blacks in their midst?

[mac_truck]

-btw You’re doing a great job defending today RB.

[rockrr]

I know that it sounds glib but I would start by answering the question, "How does a state leave the union?" by saying, "The same way it joined". Discounting the 13 original signatories (since that is a circumstance that will never occur again) I have to look to the states that were joined under Article 4, Section 3, US Constitution:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Another way of approaching it is to ask how all the other successful secessions were handled. Of course I stopped myself and said "Duh!" since there haven't been any successful secessions to use as examples.

But wait: there is one. From this link:

"As mentioned before in other discussions about secession; Virginia was a good test case to which secession was peaceful. In forming a "Federal City" - Prince George County Maryland, Montgomery County and Alexandria County (which is now called Arlington), Virginia were selected to give portions of their property to create a 10 mile square.

In the stages of creating the "Federal City" Virginia's portion grew unhappy and wished to act in secession as to retract Virginia land from the Federal City and Federal Control/Government/Courts. Now, before I go further; the transition from Virginia government to Federal was smooth and courts, documents, etc., peacefully transferred. Once the Virginia gave notice it wished it's portion to be returned to Virginia control; it was put into the court system; which the case was in Virginia's favor by the Federal Courts. Now, once they had judgment--Federal Government peacefully packed up their Federal belongings in Virginia and moved into the remaining portions of the Federal City (Washington, DC). Virginia then rechartered the secession portion of Alexandria County, (Arlington)Virginia and resumed Virginia's business. It still had the street grid of La`Fant's original plan; so it had progressed that far. It was named Arlington County, finally around 1922--after Arlington House, the mansion looking over the Potomac."

The author goes on to ask the question: since this secession satisfied the requirements of the parties and served as legal precedent, why didn't the south emulate it? How much misery and devastation could have been averted if they had explored legal remedies instead of taking such a provocative one?

I've addressed the ipse dixit (i.e., it's so because I say so) decision by a court filled with Lincoln appointees before.

I'll see your ipse dixit and raise you a ipso facto ;-)

I am familiar with your protests over the way SCOTUS came to their ruling in Texas v. White, but the simple fact remains that it is the rule of law. And I do presume that you respect the rule of law.

In short, Texas v. White says that states did not have the right to secede and that any act of secession was legally void. However, it also made note of the possibility of changes occurring "through revolution, or through consent of the States," essentially meaning that this decision held that no state has a right to unilaterally decide to leave the Union.

What are the ramifications of Madison's statements regarding "state's rights" and amendment issues? I'm not sure. I would remind you though, that on secession he said,

"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired against their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them?" -- James Madison to William Rives, 1833 "

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway: "Considering the frequency and length of your posts one would conclude that perhaps it's you that doesn't get out enough."

Ha! I'm ususally out more than here, so I do enjoy my time to discuss the great subjects with such experts as yourself... ;-)

[BroJoeK]

mstar: "I believe if this verse is taken in its proper context, you will find Jesus is continuing the theme of the Bible. . ."

Thanks, I'll remember that as your expert opinion.

mstar: "You REALLY need to accept Jesus Christ's Gift of Grace complete with His new birth or you will not make it."

Thanks, I do, and I'll remember that you like to change the subject from, in this case Civil War, to something much closer to your own heart... ;-)

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "Lee lost 38,866 in battle against Grant, while Grant lost 60,369.
These approximate figures are from "Attack and Die" by Whiney and Jamieson.
Even Sherman was appalled by Grant's losses in men."

I have handy figures for the ten largest battles of the Civil War, based on casualties -- Gettysburg, Chickamauga, Chancellorsville, Spotsylvania, Antietam, Wilderness, 2nd Manassas, Stone's River, Shiloh & Fort Donaldson.

Of the ten, Lee fought six, Grant four and of those, in two they fought each other.

In every battle, the Confederacy was outnumbered, on average around 50%.
Or, to put it another way, on average, Lee came to battle with one-third fewer troops than his opponent.

In Lee's six largest battles (Gettysburg, Chancellorsville, Spottsylvania, Antietam, Wilderness, 2nd Manassas), he averaged 23% casualties per battle.
Lee's Union opponents averaged 21% casualties per battle.

In Grant's four largest battles he averaged 60% more troops than his opponents, and suffered 22% casualties per battle.
Grant's opponents averaged 25% casualties per battle.

In the two largest battles where Lee and Grant faced each other (Spotsylvania and Wilderness), Grant's forces outnumbered Lee's by two-thirds and suffered 20% casualties per battle.
Lee's forces, by then on the defensive, suffered 15% casualties per battle.

In his six largest battles, Lee won three (Chancellorsville, Spotsylvania & 2nd Manassas), lost two (Gettysburg, Antietam) "tied" one -- Wilderness.

In his four largest battles, Grant won two (Shilo & Fort Donaldson), lost one (Spotsylvania) and "tied" one -- Wilderness.

Lee defeated Hooker, Grant & Pope.
He was defeated by Meade and McClellan, "tied" by Grant.
Grant defeated Floyd/Buckner and Johnson/Beauregard.
He was defeated and "tied" by Lee.

Of the ten largest battles, only two -- Chickamauga and Stone's River involved neither Lee nor Grant.

Somewhere I've seen more complete numbers, but even with just these top ten battles (by casualties), it's easy to see Civil War battlefields were bloody beyond our current imaginations, with high casualties on both sides.

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "They certainly seceded without mutual consent.
Mutual consent wasn't required except by those states that were oppressing the South."

First of all, there was no serious "oppression" even claimed in the Deep South slave-holders' Reasons for Secession.
What was claimed can in no way be described as Federal government "oppression".

Second, "mutual consent" was required, by our Founders' original intent, absent "usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect."

Since there was neither "mutual consent" nor material "usurpations or abuses", the Deep South slave-holders' secession could not be Constitutional.
So it was secession, in Madison's words: "at pleasure"

rustbucket: "Georgia said they wouldn't have ratified the Constitution in the first place without the fugitive slave clause being in it."

First, the Federal government's alleged failure to vigorously enough enforce Fugitive Slave Laws can hardly be called an "oppression" or "usurpation."

Second, there was no injury to the Deep South slave-holders of any consequence -- out of millions of slaves, a couple of hundred escaped per year from the Deep South?
And what percentage of those were soon recaptured in the Upper South and Border States?

This was not a serious problem before 1860, and not a serious problem in 1860 when the Deep South began seceding.
In short, it was just an excuse, not a real reason.

rustbucket: "I've seen two estimates in the old newspapers at the value of slaves they were losing.
A study in Virginia 20 years before the war had estimated they were losing $100,000 worth of slaves annually."

Key point: Virginia did not lead the secession movement, indeed, Virginia plus all Upper South states voted against secession so long as protecting slavery was the only issue.
Before Fort Sumter, the Deep South slave-holders were on their own, seceding "at pleasure" with neither "mutual consent" nor legitimate abuses or usurpations to justify them.

rustbucket: "In 1860, Louisiana had also estimated a $100,000 annual loss."

Those Louisiana slaves escaped to New Orleans, where there was a large free-black population they might hide amongst. So that had nothing, nothing to do with Northern Fugitive Slave Laws.

Regardless, we're talking at most about a couple of hundred slaves from the Deep South, out of a slave population over three million -- it's a drop in the bucket.

So Northern Fugitive Slave Laws were not a material problem for the Deep South slave-holders before 1860 and did not suddenly become some big problem in 1860.
They were an excuse, and nothing more.

rustbucket: "In the summer of 1860, abolitionists and slaves had burned towns in Texas resulting in a huge economic loss. "

First of all, Texas was the 7th and last Deep South slave-holding state to sign onto secession, and Texas' complaints --whether real or imaginary -- had nothing to do with Reasons for Secession of previous seceders: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Alablama and Louisiana.

Second, this Texas complaint has nothing to do with Federal government "usurpations or abuses" and so can in no way be considered "justly" to have the effect of "mutual consent."

rustbucket: "You may not have noticed, but the Texas Ordinance of Secession lists this among its justifications for secession. "They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose." "

"They"? Not the Federal government!
Wouldn't this be a matter for various governments to investigate before making wild claims related to secession?

rustbucket: "It takes two to make a problem.
Another way of stating this was that Northern politicians wanted to keep the territories for white people, i.e., their constituents and voters.
Lincoln himself had said that's what the territories should be for.
That was consistent with the Illinois Black Code that prohibited the immigration of blacks into Illinois."

It sounds to me like you agree with me, that the real root-cause of secession was Deep South slave-holders fears about potential future restrictions on the expansion of slavery into non-slave states and territories. That's been my core argument here all along.

Any such restrictions, of course, were 100% Constitutional and subject as always to political "sausage making" in Congress.
But then, why should Deep South slave-holders go through the endless trouble and time to make political "sausage" in Congress, when it was really quicker and easier for them to just to open up a new butcher-shop on the battlefield?
I mean, why bother to vote, when they could just shoot? </sarc>

Well, phew, this has been a very long discussion, but entirely satisfactory, if in the end we understand and agree with each other.

Thank you rustbucket!

;-)

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "Here's another way of putting it. On average, when battling Grant, Lee's troops faced armies twice their size.
The efficiency of the average Southern soldier in killing or wounding the enemy in battle against Grant's army was roughly three times better than the similar efficiency in Grant's army."

On average, Union armies were around 50% larger, or to put it another way, Confederate armies went into battle with around 1/3 fewer troops.

In the largest battles, the overall percentage of casualties was roughly the same on both sides -- 21% per battle for the Union, 23% for the Confederacy.

And yes, it did make a big difference which side was attacking more and which was more defensive.