Why the Confederacy Lost

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

Ah yes the old two wrongs make a right argument.

But it does illustrate the pitfalls of applying 21st Century morals to 19th Century situations.

The Union was carrying out genocide against the Sioux in the Dakotas even as they were prosecuting their sanctimonious crusade against slavery. And after the war they cranked it up a bunch, with one Union general (Sheridan) famously stating "The only good indian is a dead indian". And it wasn't just targeting warriors. It was true genocide that included women and children. As Colonel Chivington famously stated after the Sand Creek massacre, "Nits make lice". And don't forget handing out smallpox infected blankets and starvation via extermination of their buffalo food source.

And those two wrongs were not equal. Genocide is rightly considered far worse. Note that the Nazis had slave labor camps in WWII, but they barely warrant a notice since their genocidal crimes trumped them.

Now, don't misunderstand me here. I'm not actually castigating the Union for their actions against the indians. The reality was that the indians were the instigators of genocidal warfare - that was how they rolled. What I'm saying is that the morals of the 21st Century can't be applied to the 19th Century.

We live in extremely lush times of plenty. We can afford the luxury of considering genocide and slavery to be evils. But times can get very hard. If the margin between life and death ever became very thin again, our morals would be revised accordingly. I like to use the example of the Donner Party to illustrate that times can get so hard that you'll not only exterminate your neighbors, you'll EAT them, too!

Mid-19th Century Americans lived in a land that was only recently converted wilderness (if even that). They faced threats to life we can't even fathom. Who are we to question their strategies for survival? That's especially true if you're a descendant - if they hadn't survived you wouldn't exist.

[Toby42]

We were taught "Manifest Destiny" in school!

[Orm]

The reality was that the indians were the instigators of genocidal warfare - that was how they rolled.

This is new to me. Do you have any source for this so that I can read up on it?

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: AbwehrX

What they should have done was not leave the Union. Their excuse did not even hold water, the Congress and the Courts all sided with them on the fugitive slave issue. Lincoln did not have the power or connections to change slavery laws or the Constitution. The worst they were looking at was no more slave states. By leaving they created the very thing they were trying to avoid the loss of the slavery.

If their concerns regarding the courts verdicts were resolved in their favor then slavery was not the reason the South seceded. Secession can be logical for a multitude of reasons such as tax issues, property rights, civil rights etc. Im still convinced that the South should have seceded from the North for reasons other than slavery and that their only chance was to use diplomacy as opposed to all out warfare to gain it.

Slavery WAS the reason the South left the Union. Read their own State proclamations that list exactly that as the cause.

Slavery was the issue of the day that was the irritant. It was the fact that they were being told by the Federal Government what they could and could not do that got everyone stirred up. As has been pointed out, most southerners didn't own slaves so that would not have been an issue by and of itself without the heavy handed federal mandates they saw coming. Lincoln was elected by the North to fix that problem and the South saw legal fights coming. They weren't sure they were going to win those. So, as you said, they did the one thing that they shouldn't have done. They fought.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Orm

The reality was that the indians were the instigators of genocidal warfare - that was how they rolled.

This is new to me. Do you have any source for this so that I can read up on it?

This is a reality. The Europeans didn't care where the Native American Indians went as long as it was off the land they were after. They only initiated warfare when they didn't get the land they wanted.

The North American Indian, at the time of the Europeans arrival and for the centuries after that, were actively involved in a form of genocide against each other. Slavery was common place as well.

The genocide wasn't a complete 'wipe them out to the last nit'. What it was in actuality was to destroy the enemy unit as a whole. Kill all the men or take them as slaves. Take the women and children and assimilate them. Think BORG here and you are very close to the actuality of those times.

The Europeans never came close to that mentality. Consider all the Native American Indian Reservations in the United States and Canada today. If the Europeans were practicing genocide none of those would exist and none of those Indian Nations people's would be alive today.

As far as references find books that are specifically about a single North American Indian Nation and they will detail the inter-tribal warfare.

Here is but one example.

http://www.amazon.com/Tribal-Wars-South ... ern+plains

Good Hunting.

MR

[Capt. Harlock]

There was one other key to why the the Confederacy lost: the generals. Excellent brigade and division commanders were to be found in plenty on both sides. But competence fell markedly with Corps commanders, and became even more rare with independent Army commanders. When one talks about truly gifted full theater commanders, there were exactly three*: Lee, Grant, and Sherman. The fact that Grant and Sherman were close friends served the Union cause well.

But suppose it had been the other way around? If Albert Sydney Johnson had survived Shiloh and either Grant or Sherman had been killed, the war-winning successes in the West might never have happened.


*Joseph Johnston was a superb administrator and battlefield tactician, but he did not have the political/diplomatic skills that are vital when fighting for a democratic government.

[elxaime]

There is another thing that bears inclusion in the list of reasons why the South lost. It is not often mentioned because even today it is a sensitive topic.

A Confederate resort to guerrilla warfare would very likely have made the North completely abandon the notion of a "white man's war." Recruitment of additional African-American Union troops from former slaves would have been the natural counter to white Confederate guerrilla forces. Such forces would go far to erase the normal "home field" advantage guerrilla forces usually possess, e.g. knowledge of terrain and acclimation to local conditions. Bitter guerrilla war tends to undermine existing law and order and I think the prospect of such a prolonged struggle would have horrified whites, both north and south, since within it contained the seeds of upending social relationships based on race. That the war ended in such a conventional way enabled the de jure termination of slavery while largely keeping in place the social relationships. The ultimate failure of Reconstruction and the return of Jim Crow, the KKK night riders, etc. meant much of the promise of equal treatment remained illusory until the 1960's. It would have threatened to unwind the entirety of their existing social structure.

A good example of a similar situation is the Second Boer War, fought over three decades later (1899-1902). In that war, after delivering some early bloody noses to the British Empire, the Boer Republics conventional armies split into guerrilla columns. The British countered by increasing the recruitment of African troops, mainly as scouts and as guards to the fortified lines they created to hem in the guerrillas. Ultimate peace with the Boers was made on the basis of a deal whereby the Boers accepted British rule, while the British reneged on their promises to the Africans, leaving them with Voerwerd, pass laws, etc. in the years to come.

The British had attempted some similar moves in the American Revolution, by allying with Native Americans and decreeing freedom for American slaves who reached British lines. Since they lost that war, we can't know what they would have done with their Indian allies and black troops in the event of victory afterwards.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

Ah yes the old two wrongs make a right argument.

But it does illustrate the pitfalls of applying 21st Century morals to 19th Century situations.

The Union was carrying out genocide against the Sioux in the Dakotas even as they were prosecuting their sanctimonious crusade against slavery. And after the war they cranked it up a bunch, with one Union general (Sheridan) famously stating "The only good indian is a dead indian". And it wasn't just targeting warriors. It was true genocide that included women and children. As Colonel Chivington famously stated after the Sand Creek massacre, "Nits make lice". And don't forget handing out smallpox infected blankets and starvation via extermination of their buffalo food source.

And those two wrongs were not equal. Genocide is rightly considered far worse. Note that the Nazis had slave labor camps in WWII, but they barely warrant a notice since their genocidal crimes trumped them.

Now, don't misunderstand me here. I'm not actually castigating the Union for their actions against the indians. The reality was that the indians were the instigators of genocidal warfare - that was how they rolled. What I'm saying is that the morals of the 21st Century can't be applied to the 19th Century.

We live in extremely lush times of plenty. We can afford the luxury of considering genocide and slavery to be evils. But times can get very hard. If the margin between life and death ever became very thin again, our morals would be revised accordingly. I like to use the example of the Donner Party to illustrate that times can get so hard that you'll not only exterminate your neighbors, you'll EAT them, too!

Mid-19th Century Americans lived in a land that was only recently converted wilderness (if even that). They faced threats to life we can't even fathom. Who are we to question their strategies for survival? That's especially true if you're a descendant - if they hadn't survived you wouldn't exist.

Very good points Bob. I agree with everything you posted.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Orm

The reality was that the indians were the instigators of genocidal warfare - that was how they rolled.

This is new to me. Do you have any source for this so that I can read up on it?

Powhattan's War (1622):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_massacre_of_1622

A sneak-attack wiped out 1/3 of the Virginia colony. That would be like 9/11 killing 100 million Americans.

[Yogi the Great]

ORIGINAL: parusski

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

Ah yes the old two wrongs make a right argument.

But it does illustrate the pitfalls of applying 21st Century morals to 19th Century situations.

The Union was carrying out genocide against the Sioux in the Dakotas even as they were prosecuting their sanctimonious crusade against slavery. And after the war they cranked it up a bunch, with one Union general (Sheridan) famously stating "The only good indian is a dead indian". And it wasn't just targeting warriors. It was true genocide that included women and children. As Colonel Chivington famously stated after the Sand Creek massacre, "Nits make lice". And don't forget handing out smallpox infected blankets and starvation via extermination of their buffalo food source.

And those two wrongs were not equal. Genocide is rightly considered far worse. Note that the Nazis had slave labor camps in WWII, but they barely warrant a notice since their genocidal crimes trumped them.

Now, don't misunderstand me here. I'm not actually castigating the Union for their actions against the indians. The reality was that the indians were the instigators of genocidal warfare - that was how they rolled. What I'm saying is that the morals of the 21st Century can't be applied to the 19th Century.

We live in extremely lush times of plenty. We can afford the luxury of considering genocide and slavery to be evils. But times can get very hard. If the margin between life and death ever became very thin again, our morals would be revised accordingly. I like to use the example of the Donner Party to illustrate that times can get so hard that you'll not only exterminate your neighbors, you'll EAT them, too!

Mid-19th Century Americans lived in a land that was only recently converted wilderness (if even that). They faced threats to life we can't even fathom. Who are we to question their strategies for survival? That's especially true if you're a descendant - if they hadn't survived you wouldn't exist.

Very good points Bob. I agree with everything you posted.

I don't disagree either, nor was I in any way suggesting the actions were correct, in fact just the opposite. The comment was simply about using one wrong to justify another wrong, by more or less changing the actual old saying "Two wrongs don't make a right."

[jday305]

Very few nations that exist today do not have past events that are looked upon by todays citizens with regret and/or horror. As stated above just to name a few, the U.S. has slavory, treatment of minorities and native Americans to be ashamed of. Unfortunately, at the times these events are happening, the average joe usually agrees with the actions. It makes me wonder how my great-great-great grandchildren will view the issues and events that have taken place in my lifetime and how they will judge us for them.

[Yogi the Great]

ORIGINAL: jday305

Very few nations that exist today do not have past events that are looked upon by todays citizens with regret and/or horror. As stated above just to name a few, the U.S. has slavory, treatment of minorities and native Americans to be ashamed of. Unfortunately, at the times these events are happening, the average joe usually agrees with the actions. It makes me wonder how my great-great-great grandchildren will view the issues and events that have taken place in my lifetime and how they will judge us for them.

Probably no nations. Slavery for example has been around in many countries and societies through human history including in Africa itself and is still present today. Many wars for religious reasons, many for gain of power, land and wealth. Many examples of "genocide". Yes there is all too much shame and blame to go around. Still we can hope for a better world and more enlightened people. Unfortunately we can still look around the world today to verify that we have a long and hard road ahead. Using the faults of the past or of others who do the same or worse will always be with us. Not just to explain what nations do, but criminals and/or in business internal violations you will find the same tactic used.