Can We Have A Civil Discussion About The War Between The States ?

[Inverse Icarus]

i think so. his "preservation of the union" speeches were quite enthralling

[Felch]

Should we expect jimmytrick to show up any second?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Ramo
If JEB Stuart destroyed the supply train he raided instead of trying to hold it, Gettysburg would've been lost. Of course, that wouldn't have meant that the South would win the war. It had already been lost at Antietam, their last shot at British and French intervention.

This instance was the 3rd or 4th trip Stuart took around Federal lines.
He was supposed to meet Lee and provide a report, typical cavalry activity.
By the time he showed up, it was too late.
Add to that, Lee ignored Longstreet's suggestion to feint towards Washington, drawing an engagement from Northern troops.

Does anyone know why Confederate troops were even at Gettysburg? I do.

[Arrian]

Didn't they need shoes rather badly?

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Bingo! Reports of a shoe factory in Gettysburg.
Well-done.

[CerberusIV]

Clausewitz on the American Civil War -

"There is little to be learned from armed mobs chasing each other round the countryside"

Discuss!

[SlowwHand]

I suppose that quote would apply to any war, or sale at Sears.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Bingo! Reports of a shoe factory in Gettysburg.
Well-done.

Well, considering I have a history degree, I would have been pissed if I didn't know that.

RE: Clausewitz. Well, yeah, I guess there was absolutely nothing to learn from a bunch of guys who dug these things called trenches and then discovered that trying to charge the other guy's trench usually cost you a large # of casualties. That, and this neat toy called a "Gattling gun." I guess Clausy never thought about what might happen if you put those two things together in the same battle...

Which explains, in part, the collective idiocy 1914-1918.

-Arrian

[TheStinger]

The US civil war and the Crimean war were just warm ups for WW1.
Mass slaughter only attained a profficient level rather than expert

[SlowwHand]

Revolutionary War
25,324 Killed; 8845 Wounded

War Between The States (Civil War to Yankees)
North 363,020 Killed; 281,104 Wounded
South 119,110 Killed; 137,102 Wounded

WWI
116,708 Killed; 204,002 Wounded

WWII
408,306 Killed; 670,846 Wounded

Korea
54,246 Killed; 103,284 Wounded

Vietnam
58,219 Killed; 153,356 Wounded

Desert Storm
363 Killed; 357 Wounded

[Velociryx]

Arrian!

-=Vel=-
(and to think, the Gatling Gun was invented by a guy who studied medicine!--and dentistry)

[TheStinger]

Did they have barbed wire in the US internal dispute

[Imran Siddiqui]

Which explains, in part, the collective idiocy 1914-1918.

Exactly. Europe's dismissing of the ACW led them to repeat history, just in a more ghastly way.

[SlowwHand]

Barbed wire wasn't prevalent until the 1880's.

[TheStinger]

The wire was a major factor to the slaughter in WW1

[SlowwHand]

So was gas.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The wire was a major factor to the slaughter in WW1

I would think the machine guns and trenches had more of an effect .

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No offense, but that's a pretty silly premise - it requires not only WW1 going the same way or even happening as it did historically (extremely unlikely), but also requires the CSA to turna gainst the two countries who likely saved it - France and Britain.

It was never likely that France and Britain would have intervened to save the Confederacy. Public opinion in Britain was against the Confederacy from the beginning. There were actually riots among unemployed factory workers in the north when the scandal over the construction of the Confederate raider Alabama broke into the news. Evidently evangelical fervor among factory workers was so prevalent that they actually preferred destitution over giving support to the slaveowners of the CSA. The French were ill disposed to support the Confederacy without British support. Not only were they in over their heads in Mexico, but good ol' Jeff Davis had caused quite a stir in Paris when he promised to take Mexico off their hands within weeks of assuming the Presidency of the CSA.

Slavery would likely have been abolished by the 1940s anyway,

Yeah, just like apartheid in South Africa would have ended without international pressure.

meaning that the CSA would have in NO WAY resembled Nazi Germany in terms of civil rights and political freedom.

Really? For black people the South pretty much resembled Nazis Germany in the 1940s despite the victory of the USA in the Civil War. Even if you can't imagine how bad life would have been for them in a twentieth century CSA I can. Coming from a family that owned slave continuously from the 17th century up to the Emancipation Proclamation I see Lincoln's soldiers as redeemers of my and my family's soul(s), because if the CSA had prevailed we would have continued to perpetuate this horrible sin for God knows how long.

Didn't Turtledove write a novel about am alternate history in which the South won the Civil War and the USA became an ally of Germany? What do you think about that?

[SlowwHand]

Britain allowed the Confederacy to build ships in their ports, incognito.
They also had observers attached to the Confederacy.
So UNOFFICIALLY, they didn't the Confederacy.

And, with a great effort to not get in pissing match I referenced when starting this thread, the VAST MAJORITY of Confederates did not own slaves.

You people can cling to that arguement until hell freezes over, but that won't make it correct.

Another thing about Vicksburg was the shelling from ironclads and regular wooden gunboats.
Many times naval vessels have virtually been ignored in any discussions.

[Arrian]

And, with a great effort to not get in pissing match I referenced when starting this thread, the VAST MAJORITY of Confederates did not own slaves.

True. It's also true, however, that the people who set up and ran the Confederacy did. But really, let's not go down that road.

Speaking of naval operations, Sloww, how about "Full speed ahead, and damn the torpedoes!" (capture of New Orleans). Vicksburg was the final Mississippi stronghold to fall. New Orleans was one of the first.

-Arrian

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Felch X
Should we expect jimmytrick to show up any second?

That would have been a rational expectation. Not much here to comment on though.

The battle of Gettysburg was a meeting engagement. Entirely different animal from Vicksburg. AnnC brought up the most interesting question.

Vel comments on the Stonewall what if are devoid of logic.

As soon as a meaningful discussion breaks out I'll jump in.

Otherwise, piss on someone else.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Britain allowed the Confederacy to build ships in their ports, incognito.

When they were caught the people rioted and the government nearly fell, ending the construciotn of Confederate ships in British shipyards.

They also had observers attached to the Confederacy.
So UNOFFICIALLY, they didn't the Confederacy.

So also did a number of other countries including Prussia and Russia. These countries also had observers on the Union side. At a time when guns had ranges less than 1000 yards this was common pratice. It did not signify support.

And, with a great effort to not get in pissing match I referenced when starting this thread, the VAST MAJORITY of Confederates did not own slaves.

Statistically one-third of all Southern white families did own slaves. That probably meant that among the two-thirds who didn't own slaves most had second or third degree relatives who did, and could borrow them if need be.

[Boris Godunov]

Ah, thanks, Doc S. I didn't want to have to post, for the fourth time, the statistics for Sloww showing that slave ownership wasn't as "rare" as some would like us to believe. In the deep south ownership was almost 50% percent.

[SlowwHand]

Right, about the capture of New Orleans.

Vicksburg was a tough nut to crack, and protected by Home Guard only.
Surrounding swampland and battlements required the siege to take months. Many lived under their homes in existing cellars, or dug them in preparation.

To bring up a good point about Grant, after starving Vicksburg for months, once the city was taken, he had needed food distributed.
Better than Sherman.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

When they were caught the people rioted and the government nearly fell, ending the construciotn of Confederate ships in British shipyards.

So also did a number of other countries including Prussia and Russia. These countries also had observers on the Union side. At a time when guns had ranges less than 1000 yards this was common pratice. It did not signify support.

Statistically one-third of all Southern white families did own slaves. That probably meant that among the two-thirds who didn't own slaves most had second or third degree relatives who did, and could borrow them if need be.

The South tried to use King Cotton to pressure England into supporting their cause. The religious fevor was more or less preceeded by unemployment in the mills. Nothing feeds a revival like resentment.

I think that it was more like 25% than a third. Source? And this bit about second or third cousins and borrowing slaves is silly. The South was a class society and the upper class most certainly did not loan out their slaves as a matter of course to the lower class.

[Boris Godunov]

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html

Mississippi and SC both had close to 50% slave ownership, while GA, AL and FL all had over 33% ownership. As the summary says, the percentage for the CSA was just over 30%.

[Capt Dizle]

The South Was Not Responsible For Slavery
by Arthur H. Jennings



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither the introduction of slaves into America nor their continued importation can be charged to the South. Undoubtedly England, Spain and the Dutch were primarily and largely responsible for the introduction and the earlier importation of slaves to this country. As Bancroft says, "The sovereigns of England and Spain were the greatest slave merchants in the world."
Later on, this country came into prominence in the traffic in human bodies and DuBois, the negro historical writer says, "The American slave trade came to be carried on principally by United States capital, in United States ships, officered by United States citizens and under the United States flag." Supporting this, Dr. Phillips of Tulane University in his section of The South in the Building of the Nation states, "The great volume of the slave traffic from the earlier 17th century onward was carried on by English and Yankee vessels, with some competition from the French and the Dutch."
The responsibility for this home, or American, participation in the slave importing business rests primarily and principally upon New England and likewise, very largely, upon New York. It was a boast and a taunt of pre-war days with pro-slavery orators that, "The North imported slaves, the South only bought them" -- and historians assert that "there is some truth in the assertion."
Indeed, it has been widely claimed that "No Southern man or Southern ship ever brought a slave to the United States," and while this statement is disputed and is perhaps not strictly true according to the letter, it is undoubtedly true in spirit, for the cases where a Southern man or Southern ship could be charged with importing slaves are few indeed, while New England, as well as New York, were openly and boldly engaged in the traffic, employing hundreds of ships in the nefarious business.
"Slavery," says Henry Watterson, in the Louisville Courier Journal, "existed in the beginning North and South. But the North finding slave labor unsuited to its needs and, therefore, unprofitable, sold its slaves to the South, not forgetting to pocket the money it got for them, having indeed at great profit brought them over from Africa in its ships."
Mr. Cecil Chesterman, a distinguished English historian, in his History of the United States, says on this point, "The North had been the original slave traders. The African slave trade had been their particular industry. Boston itself had risen to prosperity on the profits of the abominable traffic."
The Marquis of Lothian, in his Confederate Secession, makes the statement that "out of 1,500 American slave traders, only five were from the South," but apparently this statement is contradicted later in his volume when he says, "out of 202 slavers entering the port of Charleston, S.C., in four years, 1796 to 1799 inclusive, 91 were English, 88 Yankee, 10 were French and 13 South...."
Many indeed are the authorities that support the statement that the South did not import slaves. "Slavery," says Senator John W. Daniel of Virginia, "was thrust on the South, an uninvited, aye, a forbidden guest," and Dr. Charles Morris, in his History of Civilization says, "The institution of slavery was not of their making; it had been thrust upon their fathers against their violent opposition."
Mrs. Sea, in her book, The Synoptical Review of Slavery, says, "I have heard the statement made, and gentlemen of the highest standing for scholarly attainment given as authority, that no Southern man ever owned a slave ship and that no slave ship handled by a Southern man ever brought a cargo of slaves from Africa."
Dr. Lyon G. Taylor, the scholarly President of William and Mary College, Virginia, and an authority, says, regarding this statement, "I am sure it can be said that no Southern man or Southern ship, as far as is known, engaged in the slave trade."
References to Southern ships or Southern men as engaged in the slave importing business are at best vague. The famous case of the Wanderer, one of the most noted of slave trading vessels, is often mentioned and her ownership is credited to men of Charleston and Savannah, but even if this be true, she was built in New York, her captain was a New York man, and a member of the New York Yacht Club and the Wanderer sailed under the proud flag of that Club when she went to the Congo after slaves. Her captain was later expelled from the Club for this offense.
The fact that there was domestic traffic in slaves, some of this domestic traffic being carried on through coastwise trading, seems to have confused some and induced them to believe the South engaged in the slave importing business. On the other hand, the responsibility of New England and New York for the almost exclusive monopoly of domestic participation in the slave importing business is most clearly established. Massachusetts looms largely to the front when investigation into this gruesome subject is pursued. The first slave ship of this country, the Desire, was fitted out in Massachusetts, and set sail for the coast of Africa from Marblehead. Massachusetts was the first of all the colonies to authorize the establishment of slavery by statute law, doing this some decades before her example was followed by any of the Southern colonies. The first statute establishing slavery in America is embodied in the Code of the Massachusetts Colony in New England, adopted in 1641, and it should be realized that slave trading in Massachusetts was not a private enterprise but was carried on by authority of the Plymouth Rock colony.
The Puritans early evinced a tendency to enslave Indian captives and sell them out of the country, and from that early day down to a period practically after the War Between the States had begun (for the last slave ship, the Nightingale, sailing from Boston and fitted out there, with 900 slaves on board was captured at the mouth of the Congo River after the war had started), New England, with Massachusetts leading, stood preeminent in the slave trade.
Much of the prominence and wealth of these states was derived from the slave trade and the commercial importance of such towns as Newport, Rhode Island, was based entirely upon the traffic. It is stated that Faneuil Hall, the famous "Cradle of Liberty" where so many abolition speeches, denunciatory of the South were made, was built with money earned in the slave traffic, as Peter Faneuil was actively engaged in it. "It was a traffic," says Dr. Phillips, in The South in Building of the Nation, "in which highly honorable men like Peter Feneuil engaged and which the Puritans did not condemn in the Colonial period." Stephen Girard is another prominent philanthropist of the North who made money in slaves, working large numbers of them on a Louisiana sugar plantation which he owned, and it is asserted that Girard College was built with money earned by the labors of these slaves.
In fact, DuBois asserts that the New England conscience which would not allow slavery to flourish on the sacred soil of Massachusetts did not hesitate to seize the profits resulting from the rape of slaves from their African homes and their sale to Southern planters. But, according to John Adams, it was not a tender conscience but an economic reason upon which the forbidding of slaves in Massachusetts was based, for he is quoted as saying, "Argument might have had some weight in the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts, but the real cause was the multiplication of laboring white people who no longer would suffer the rich to employ these sable rivals so much to their injury." Thomas Jefferson, who had introduced a scathing denunciation of, and protest against, the slave trade in the Declaration of Independence, withdrew it upon the insistence of Adams and other New Englanders, and he indulges in the following little bit of sarcasm at their expense: "Our Northern friends... were tender under these censures, for, though their people have very few slaves, yet they had been considerable carriers of them to others."
Economic reasons were the base of abolition of slavery in New England. There is abundance of record to show dissatisfaction with negro labor, who were stated to be "eye servants, great thieves, much addicted to lying and stealing," and the superiority of white labor was brought prominently forward. Furthermore, the mortality of the negroes in the cold New England climate was great and figures were brought forward to show how their importation into the section was not "profitable." Governor Dudley in a formal report in 1708 stated, "Negroes have been found unprofitable investments, the planters preferring white servants."
Boston was all along prominent in the slave trade, the Continental Monthly of New York, as late as January, 1862, being quoted as saying, "The city of New York has been until lage [1862] the principal port of the world for this infamous traffic, the cities of Portland and Boston being only second to her in that distinction." "Slave dealers," it continues, "added much to the wealth of our metropolis."
Vessels from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire were early and largely engaged in the slave trade, and it is a very significant fact that while duties, more or less heavy, were imposed upon the imported slaves in Southern harbors, and other harbors of the country, the port of New England were offered as a free exchange mart for slavers.
New England citizens were traders by instinct and profession, and with the birth of commerce in the New World they eagerly turned the high profits of the African slave trade and made it a regular business. The Hartford Courant in an issue of July, 1916, said, "Northern rum had much to do with the extension of slavery in the South. Many people in this state [Connecticut] as well as in Boston, made snug fortunes for themselves by sending rum to Africa to be exchanged for slaves and then selling the slaves to the planters of Southern states."
Rhode Island at an early date had 150 vessels engaged in the slave trade, while at a later date, when New York had loomed to the front of the trade, the New York Journal of Commerce is quoted as saying, "Few of our readers are aware of the extent to which this infernal traffic is carried on by vessels clearing from New York and down town merchants of wealth and respectability are engaged extensively in buying and selling African negroes, and have been for an indefinite number of years."
As early as 1711 a slave market was established in New York City in the neighborhood of Wall street where slaves from Africa were brought to supply the Southern market. There was another prominent slave market in Boston. The slaves were hurried into the South as fast as possible as hundreds died from cold and exposure and the sudden change from a tropic African climate to a bleak Northern temperature. The United States Dept. Marshall for that New York district reported in 1856 that "the business of fitting out slavers was never prosecuted with greater energy than at present." In a year and a half preceding the War Between the States eighty-five slave trading vessels are reported as fitting out in New York harbor and DuBois writes that, "from 1850 to 1860 the fitting out of slavers became a flourishing business in the United States and centered in New York City."
Although Massachusetts and New York were thus prominent in the business of enslaving and importing Africans and selling them to South America and the Southern colonies, and later the Southern states in the Union, other parts of New England took most prominent part in the slave trade. Indeed, in the Reminiscences of Samuel Hopkins, Rhode Island is said to have been "more deeply interested in the slave trade than any other colony in New England and has enslaved more Africans."
Thus begining with that first slave ship of this country, the Desire of Marblehead, Mass., the slave trade flourished in New England and New York. The favorite method was to exchange rum for negroes and to sell the negroes to the Southern plantations. Federal laws were powerless to hold in check the keenness for this profitable traffic in human flesh. As late as 1850, the noted slave smuggler, Drake, who flourished and operated along the Gulf Coast, is reported to have said, "Slave trading is growing more profitable every year, and if you should hang all the Yankee merchants engaged in it, hundreds more would take their place."
The outlawing of the traffic seemed but to stimulate it. From the very inception of the institution of slavery in this country there was protest and action against it throughout the Southern colonies. The vigorous action of Virginia and her protests to the royal governor to prohibit the further importation of slaves to her territory are well known. We have seen how Jefferson introduced into the Declaration of Independence a protest against the slave trade which he withdrew at the behest of New England. Every prominent man in Virginia at this period was in favor of gradual emancipation and there were more than five times as many members of abolition socities in the South than in the North. Only with the rise of the rabid abolitionists of New England and their fierce denunciations of the South did the South abandon hope of gradual emancipation. Touching this, Mr. Cecil Chesterman, quoted above, states very proudly in his History of the United States, "What could exceed the effrontery of men," asked the Southerner, "who reproach us with grave personal sin in owning property which they themselves sold us and the price of which is at this moment in their pockets?" Virginia legislated against slavery over a score of times; South Carolina protested against it as early as 1727, and in Georgia there was absolute prohibition of it by law. Let it be remembered that when the National Government took action and the slavery prohibition laws of Congress went into effect in 1808, every Southern state had prohibited it.
But, as stated, the outlawing of the traffic seemed but to stimulate it. In the earlier years of the 19th century thousands of slaves were imported into this country. In the year 1819, Gen. James Talmage, speaking in the House of Representatives, declared, "It is a well known fact that about 14,000 slaves have been brought into our country this year." And Sergeant, of Pennsylvania, said, "It is notorious that in spite of the utmost vigilance that can be employed, African negroes are clandestinely brought in and sold as slaves."
This "vigilance" he speaks of, however, was much ridiculed by others, and it was openly hinted that the efforts of the Federal authorities to suppress the trade, even the look-out for slavers along the African coast as conducted by vessels of the United States Navy, were merely perfunctory. Blake in his History of Slavery and the Slave Trade, published in 1857, says, "It is stated upon good authority that in 1844 more slaves were carried away from Africa in ships than in 1744 when the trade was legal and in full vigor;" while in the year immediately preceding the opening of the War Between the States, John C. Underwood is quoted as writing to the New York Tribune: "I have ample evidence of the fact that the reopening of the African slave trade is an accomplished fact and the traffic is brisk." Not only was the traffic brisk with the United States but thousands of slaves were being smuggled into Brazil.
Southern members of Congress complained of the violations of the law and the illegal importation of slaves into their territory. Smith, of South Carolina, said on the floor of Congress in 1819: "Our Northern friends are not afraid to furnish the Southern States with Africans;" and in 1819, Middleton, of South Carolina, and Wright, of Virginia, estimated the illicit introduction of slaves at from 1300 to 1500 respectively.
There is interest in the striking fact that one year before the outbreak of the War Between the States, and at the time when the rabid abolitionists of New England and the North were most vigorous in their denunciations of the South and the slave holders, there were in Massachusetts only 9000 free negroes, while in Virginia there were 53,000 of these negroes, free, and able to go where they pleased; and it is significant that about as many free negroes chose to live in Southern slave holding states as dwelt in Northern states; and many of these free negroes owned slaves themselves and were well-to-do citizens. In the city of Charleston, S.C., some three hundred free negroes owned slaves themselves.
In closing this article the following letter, which appeared in the columns of the New Orleans Picayune years ago, may be of interest:

My father, Capt. John Julius Guthrie, then of the United States Navy, while executive officer of the sloop of war Saratoga on April 21st, 1861, captured at the mouth of the Congo River, on the west coast of Africa, the slave ship Nightingale with 900 slaves aboard. The slaver was owned, manned and equipped in the city of Boston, Mass., and in reference to the date it will appear that her capture was after the assault on Fort Sumter and the Baltimore riot consequent upon the passage of the 6th Massachusetts Regiment through the city. This was the last slaver captured by an American war ship and as my father soon after resigned and went in to the Confederate service, her captain and owners were never brought to trial. All this is a matter of record on file at the Navy Department in Washington. Thus it will be seen that the last capture of a slaver was by a Southern officer and the good people of Massachusetts were engaged in this nefarious business at the beginning of our unhappy war.

[Signed]
J. Julius Guthrie.
Portsmouth, Va.

Too long has the South had the odium of slavery forced upon her. With the institution thrust upon her against her protest, the slaves flourished in her boundaries on account of climate, and economic conditions favored the spread of the institution itself. The facts set forth above indicate the innocence of the South in foisting this feature upon our national life, as well as her freedom from guilt in the continued importation of slaves into this country. While no claim is made for special virtue in that the South did not engage in the slave importing business as the North did, yet the facts as they exist are to her credit. With the facts in her favor, the South sits still under the false indictments constantly made against her by the section of our country most responsible for the whole trouble. Willing to abide by the verdict of posterity, if the verdict is based upon the truth, and not upon the false statements of Northern historians, writers and speakers, and willing to accept her share, her full share of due responsibility, this section, in justice to her dead who died gloriously in a maligned cause, and to her unborn children, inheritors of a glorious heritage, must set forth to the world the facts as they are, neither tainted with injustice to others nor burdened with hypocritical claims of righteousness for herself; and these facts will establish her in the proud position to which she has all along been entitled among the people of the earth.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html

Mississippi and SC both had close to 50% slave ownership, while GA, AL and FL all had over 33% ownership. As the summary says, the percentage for the CSA was just over 30%.

Hey Boris! Within Epperson's website there are sections on the causes of the civil war which feature the texts of the speeches given by the major proponents of secession to various state legislatures during the debates over secession in 1860 and 1861. These speeches are the "smoking gun" in the debate over whether the southern states seceeded in order to defend their states rights or to preserve slavery. Go look for them and enjoy.

[Capt Dizle]

Doc, I am glad you feel redeemed pal. Sorry I can't share the sentiment.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Hey Boris! Within Epperson's website there are sections on the causes of the civil war which feature the texts of the speeches given by the major proponents of secession to various state legislatures during the debates over secession in 1860 and 1861. These speeches are the "smoking gun" in the debate over whether the southern states seceeded in order to defend their states rights or to preserve slavery. Go look for them and enjoy.

Oh, I know. I was using Epperson's site years ago in a debate over the cause of the Civil War. It's very nice to have first-hand documentary evidence.