Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The southern Confederacy had tremendous problems rallying the troops, especially after Shiloh, which led to various conscription acts. And as others have clearly stated, conscription belied the most commonplace ideas southerners had of proper governance.
Desertion was also a huge problem for the Confederacy and its state governments.
Of course desertion was a huge problem. These guys weren't stupid. They knew they were fighting against staggering odds. Basically, they wanted to be left alone. They were willing to fight for freedom, but more than anything, they wanted to be left alone.
Desertion was a problem with BOTH armies and in fact the North lost more troops to desertion than did the South but then again, they could afford to loose more. Most of the Southern volunteers originally signed up for 1 year of service so after that one year they felt perfectly justified in walking away despite the new conscription laws that were passed basically extending their enlistment till the end of the war.. or death, which ever came first!
The Majority of the Southern desertions occurred during the final year. Many troops would flee homeward after hearing news that Sherman was burning their town and family.
According to McPherson in For Cause and Comrades, southern desertions began en masse with the Chattanooga campaign.
Yet I think mco and Big George missed the reason for my post and that was to challenge this notion of southern solidarity with the cause because it did not exist, especially after Shiloh.
This is Paul Escott's argument in his book, After Secession: Jeff Davis and the Failure of Confederate Nationalism.
What most Americans probably do not realize nor consider is that the Union of states that comprised the original United States was a rather forced thing to begin with. The only reason the colonies "united" was for the mutual purpose of ridding the colonies of British oversight. The colonies (now considered independent "states" after July 4, 1776) formed a confederacy that had essentially 13 sovereign governments. After the Revolutionary War, many Americans believed that this confederacy would eventually fail.
Not only that, but this confederacy or Union of states covered only those areas along the Atlantic seaboard. The "old Southwest" that is Alabama, Mississippi, many believed, would become its own country independent of the United States.
The Federal Union, organized after the ratification of the United States Constitution, angered many, who then sat back and waited until it broke apart. The Hartford Convention of states in the northeast was just one early attempt at forming independent countries out of land that had been a part of the original United States.
In short, secession and other independencies has long been a belief and goal among many Americans across vast expanses of time. I believe H.W. Brands takes this idea up and explores it in his new book about Aaron Burr.
If this had stuck and no central government with the ability to function had existed, the British would have slowly nipped away at it. Or it would have become a balcanized area, where constant bickering and possibly wars would have blunted any attempts at stability. The American continent would have been a target to take and plunder by European nations and likely become part of their wars.
The reason the colonies were able to win besides the French wishing to give the finger to their enemies was because they DID stand together and if they had abandoned that it would have been free for all time.
It's been acknowledge that the most significant contribution to the future the civil war made was making everyone Americans, as before they were of their state first and formost. The method was by disavowing states rights over federal rights. The social method was by moving huge amounts of people to different places and in the end leaving them where they were released from the military. Instead of farming the farm, they saw many other possibilities.
States rights will never be forgotten, but it was a fundamental change which enabled US history go go on as it did.
According to McPherson in For Cause and Comrades, southern desertions began en masse with the Chattanooga campaign.
Yet I think mco and Big George missed the reason for my post and that was to challenge this notion of southern solidarity with the cause because it did not exist, especially after Shiloh.
Concerning Southern Solidarity in the 1860s, of course it existed otherwise there would have been no war. It ended because the Union crushed it out of them... Concerning southern solidarity today, i simply do not see it.. at least not they way it existed back in 1860.
^ That's a pretty short-sighted view of the demise of the Confederacy. It's also a shallow view of current Libertarians.
Timing is vital. Had the Civil War taken place 25 years earlier, before the North was as industrialized as it became toward the mid-late 1800s, the Confederacy would almost certainly have won the war.
How much manpower did the South use protecting their backs from a slave uprising during the war?
Keeping the Slaves in submission used up a lot of resources. Hitler and the Nazis made the same mistakes during WW2 trying to exterminate the Jews.
GL2
The concept of States rights is a theory not unlike all men are created equal. Near the end of the Civil War the Confederate States were behaving just like the Union they no longer wanted to be a part of. It pointless to create scenarios which have the Confederacy winning. They would have to continue fighting each other over; arming slaves, income taxes, the draft, and demanding that farmers give the government a percent their production.
Regarding desertions, John Horrocks wrote in his book something that would be a total disgrace in England was considered a pretty smart thing to do in the Civil war. John Horrocks was an Englishman who became a Union Officer in the 8th USCI.
Last edited by thriftylefty; 09-12-2012 at 10:30 AM..
It is interesting to read contemporary arguments by libertarians and neo-anti-federalist that write in favor of secession and how those arguments closely mirror the political sentiments expressed by secessionist prior to and during the Civil War. However, what these contemporary arguments fail to acknowledge is the historical evidence of how those sentiments were actually put into practice by the confederacy proved to be a significant contributing factor leading to its defeat. The inability of the confederacy to effectively enforce conscription, raise money, or even direct the deployment of state militias without the cooperation of the various state governments are just a few examples all couched in terms of states' rights proved the confederacy to be ungovernable just as the United States under the Articles of Confederation proved to be an ineffective form of national government, and as the European Union demonstrates today.
Your thoughts?
You raise a good point. Often the people who choose to throw off one system to create what they view as an ideal often find themselves compromising on that ideal when it comes to actually governing. In US history we have the Presidency of Jefferson as a clear-cut example. We have a man who feared a powerful presidency liberally using discretionary power when he could. He bought Louisianna from the French in what was then viewed as a huge increase in assumed Federal power. He offered assistance to French plantation owners in Haiti to put down a slave rebellion despite the fact the goal of the rebellion was to overthrow European control of the nation and was inspired by the ideals of the French Revolution that Jefferson was so fascinated by. Then of course we have the famous Embargo Act of 1807 which Jefferson enforced at gun point with Federal troops.
When the actors fail to compromise or the system prevents them from doing so, the nation is doomed to fail. Hence, why the people who advocated so strongly for state's rights ultimately found themselves driven by necessity to attempt to enforce a stronger national government. Lacking the real power to do so they found themselves let down by the whims of their consituent parts who were not always willing to sacrifice themselves for the whole.
When the actors fail to compromise or the system prevents them from doing so, the nation is doomed to fail. Hence, why the people who advocated so strongly for state's rights ultimately found themselves driven by necessity to attempt to enforce a stronger national government. Lacking the real power to do so they found themselves let down by the whims of their consituent parts who were not always willing to sacrifice themselves for the whole.
"If the Confederacy fails, there should be written on its tombstone: Died of a Theory."
Jefferson Davis
The Confederates had the example of the successful American Revolution conducted under even less centralized conditions by a provisional government, which had less power to compel behavior on the part of the citizens than did the CSA. That the South would believe that it could prevail even with the absence of a more potent central government, is not without a logical foundation, or at least a seeming precedent.
Of course the American Revolution triumphed not because of their loose confederation, but rather in spite of it. Was the CSA really done in by its dilution of central power, or is that a convenient place to place blame when you don't want to admit that you have been whipped on the battlefields, especially if your regional mentality as well as your propaganda held that your people were true cavaliers and fighters, and the enemy was a bunch of self interest driven mechanics and shop keepers?
For those who support the idea that the Confederacy defeated itself by its weak form of government, it might be a good exercise to try project how things would have been different had the Richmond government been able to enforce all of its wishes on the member states. How many more men might have been raised that were instead kept at home by state governors for local protection? Was this a difference making amount?
The same sort of question could be applied to Confederate finances and supply systems. For example I have often read that the true problem for the rebels was not a lack of supplies, rather it was the absence of a reliable transportation system to get the supplies where they were most needed. A stronger central government might have been able to address that problem after the war, but they were hardly in a position to expand their rail or road systems while the war was underway.
Before we agree with President Davis that the South died of a "theory", we need to be able to identify those specific points where the lack of a stronger central government made a difference in specific outcomes.
I believe 3 things cost the CSA victory.
1--The lack of heavy industry.
2--The inability to break the Yankee blockade in order to ship cotton to Europe in exchange for war materials.
3--The refusal of the CSA to free the slaves. Had the ended slaverythey may have had the support of certain countries and wealthy individuals who were sympathetic with the South in everything except slavery.
IMO opinion the South should have freed the slaves and then seceded.
"Way down yonder in the land of cotton....................................."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
