Simplest POD to let South win Civil War?

All of this is in keeping with the neo-Radical ideal of course, and is about as accurate as the Lost Cause ideal. Two ideals that are thesis driven and ignore the actual evidence.

Neo-Radical ideas? That's a an interesting assertion given that pretty much all mainstream Civil War experts come to far different conclusions than you do regarding a number of Civil War topics...most notably Gen. McClellan and Lee's conduct at Gettysburg.

Third day at Gettysburg - Lee's plan was workable. It was botched by his senior subordinate, Longstreet. He went in half-hearted, and doomed the attack from the start.

I am now putting forth an honest and sincere invitation for you to come to the U.S. and stay in Gettysburg. If you cover airfare, I can get you a place to stay...I grew up near Hanover and my brother now lives in Abbotstown but a hotel is more likely. I'll find us a licensed Battlefield Tour Guide, most likely my old high school history teacher Fred Hawthorne, and we can walk around the entire Battlefield. I have feeling seeing the place first hand may change your mind a bit regarding the workability of Lee's plan.

I recommend mid-April when History Meets the Arts is held. Its a great time to meet Civil War artists and authors. I'll even treat you to a meal at the bullet hole ridden Farnsworth House.

What do the desertion figures of late 1864 have to do with 1861? Have you compared them to the Federal desertion figures?

While it is true that Union deserters (200,000 to 278,000) far outnumber their Confederate (103,000 to 110,000) counter parts, getting a true and accurate count is very difficult. Many units lost large numbers of men as their initial enlistments ran out and some of them were counted as deserters. In the Union Army once the bounty system was enacted there were numerous problems with men deserting and then rejoining a different unit just to collect a new bounty.

Finally, while comparing 1861 desertion rates to to those in 1864 may be flawed, it is important to mention that as early as 1862 Lee was complaining so much about desertion that the Confederate Congress initiated conscription long before the Union did the same.

As to "territorial waters", your argument has no weight whatsoever. The Confederacy was a state when it declared itself a state and took control of its' national territory, no matter what the somantics of the issue and Washington's denialism. Or should we apply your argument to, say, the United States before 1783?

The American Revolution is a far different affair than the American Civil War. The colonies were political and economic subordinates to the Crown and Parliament with no representation in government and no political recourse to address grievances beyond simpering and begging. But to honestly answer your question...no the US did not have "territorial waters" until officially recognized as an independent nation by other nations that were willing to act in such a way that legitimized America's claims to having "territorial waters." Convoluted, yes. Nation States only become such when they are able to enforce their claims completely by themselves or are recognized by other powers that are able to enforce their claims for them.

As for the right to secession it does not exist. The Constitution is silent on the issue but the Articles of Confederation claimed to form a "perpetual Union." The Constitution built upon this claim by asserting "...to form a more perfect Union." Ergo one can argue in a legal sense that the Constitution is also a "perpetual Union." Further more the Constitution has no mechanism to allow for legal secession and while some argue that the 10th Amendment gives states this power, they over look the Federal government's power to suppress rebellion. If the Southern states really were concerned with adhering to the Constitution they would have sued the Federal government or taken the issue of secession to Congress to decide. But they really only cared for the Constitution when used to protect slavery and curtail the power of the Free States.

Regarding who started the war and why, it's too bad you have bought into the anti-Lincoln Lost Cause lies. You seem like a smart person but you cherry pick your sources far too much. Remember that the fighting over slavery had been going on since America's independence. It got worse after the Northwest Ordinance prohibited slavery in the Old Northwest and PA, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois suffered continuous cross-border raids that included home invasions, kidnappings, beatings and even murder throughout the antebellum era. Counter raids by abolitionists only really began after the Compromise of 1850 when a much harsher Fugitive Slave Law came into play. Most Northern States still supported the Southern right to chattle slavery but refused to allow their residents to be dragged out of state without some sort of legal proceeding. Northern states passed personal liberty laws along with laws requiring slave catchers to bring the accused before a judge (writ of Habeas Corpus),, give the accused time to present evidence in their own defense, and if questions arise submit to a jury trial before they were returned to slavery. But slave owners refused all of this and demanded the right to enter free states to retrieve their slaves without the need to present any evidence beyond their word that the accused was an escaped slave. This of course led to many problems that were further enhanced by the Dredd Scott Decision which essentially overturned anti-slavery laws through out the Nation by making it impossible for Free States to prevent slave owners from bringing their slaves into the state with them.

Of course the majority of Americans recognized the inherent "Right of Revolution." It was a founding concept of our nation, but they did not recognize the somewhat different "Right of Rebellion." The South left the nation not because they had been oppressed or denied their rights. The South had dominated America politically since independence and now they saw that their region had been surpassed by the growing population and industry of the North. So they ignored the results of a legitimate and legally binding election and attempted to leave the Union. They in fact broke a contract unilaterally, something that is not legal, and took by force territory that was not theirs to take.

Finally with regards to the actual start of the Civil War the South once again is the antagonist. There was no offer to pay for the seized Federal territories. It was done without provocation and through the us of force. Ironically, if the South had gone to the Supreme Court (which was decidedly pro-Southern) or to Congress before the new session began, there is a good chance they may have been allowed to secede legally. Instead they chose violence and war, which isn't surprising given that they had been doing just that for a long time.

Read...
Border Wars: Fighting over Slavery before the Civil War by Stanely Harrold.

America in 1857: A Nation on the Brink by Kenneth Stampp

The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History edited by Gary W. Gallagher and Alan T. Nolan.

Why the Civil War Came edited by Gabor S. Boritt

The Road to Disunion by William W. Freehling

At the Precipice by Shearer D. Bowman

And the offer to visit is sincere.

Benjamin
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
To get this thread back on track...

A few simple PODs that might allow the South to win

1. British intervention during the Trent Affair

2. Putting anyone but Polk in command of the upper Mississippi in late 61

3. Proper coordination of attacks at Glendale in June 62, leading to decisive AoNV victory over AotP

4. "Lost Orders" not lost, September 62 (overdone IMHO)
 
5. Lincoln assassinated in Baltimore as he's traveling to Washington for his inauguration in 1861.

6. Virginia state militia and Maryland rioters seize Washington in 1861 before the Union Army shows up to defend it.
 
Lincoln decides that the Constitution doesn't allow him to use force to hold the Union together
.Lincoln Ignored the Constitution when it got in his way.

Still think My Lincoln Killed pre Inagual -- giving us President Hamlin is the simplest.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Neo-Radical ideas? That's a an interesting assertion given that pretty much all mainstream Civil War experts come to far different conclusions than you do regarding a number of Civil War topics...most notably Gen. McClellan and Lee's conduct at Gettysburg.

No, they're what some people put forth. The fact that this neo-Radical ideal is currently in the ascendency (and arguably now waning as a new generation of writers are starting to question it in the way the neo-Radicals did to the Lost Cause in the 1960-70's) doesn't necessarily make it right. Put forth some of these ideas in the 1950's and you'd get a blizzard of Lost Causers showing that it is against the current grain.

With anything you must let the evidence lead you to conclusions.

I am now putting forth an honest and sincere invitation for you to come to the U.S. and stay in Gettysburg. If you cover airfare, I can get you a place to stay...I grew up near Hanover and my brother now lives in Abbotstown but a hotel is more likely. I'll find us a licensed Battlefield Tour Guide, most likely my old high school history teacher Fred Hawthorne, and we can walk around the entire Battlefield. I have feeling seeing the place first hand may change your mind a bit regarding the workability of Lee's plan.

I recommend mid-April when History Meets the Arts is held. Its a great time to meet Civil War artists and authors. I'll even treat you to a meal at the bullet hole ridden Farnsworth House.

I would love to, and it is on my "to do" list. Unfortunately for the next 15 months or so I will be unable to due to commitments to my doctorate.

While it is true that Union deserters (200,000 to 278,000) far outnumber their Confederate (103,000 to 110,000) counter parts, getting a true and accurate count is very difficult. Many units lost large numbers of men as their initial enlistments ran out and some of them were counted as deserters. In the Union Army once the bounty system was enacted there were numerous problems with men deserting and then rejoining a different unit just to collect a new bounty.

I'd argue you understate both numbers, but the Confederate number hugely. See Weitz's "More Damning Than Slaughter" (and related works). I'd contend that had either side been able to control their desertion problems they would have gained an insurmountable advantage in the field.

Finally, while comparing 1861 desertion rates to to those in 1864 may be flawed, it is important to mention that as early as 1862 Lee was complaining so much about desertion that the Confederate Congress initiated conscription long before the Union did the same.

True, but Lincoln observed that of the 180,000 men on the rolls of McClellan's Field Force in September '62 at least 100,000 had deserted by the 17th September. Lincoln of course ascribes this (rather ludicrously IMHO) to a lack of hard fighting.

The American Revolution is a far different affair than the American Civil War. The colonies were political and economic subordinates to the Crown and Parliament with no representation in government and no political recourse to address grievances beyond simpering and begging. But to honestly answer your question...no the US did not have "territorial waters" until officially recognized as an independent nation by other nations that were willing to act in such a way that legitimized America's claims to having "territorial waters." Convoluted, yes. Nation States only become such when they are able to enforce their claims completely by themselves or are recognized by other powers that are able to enforce their claims for them.

Well then applying that argument then the existence of Confederate territorial waters is demonstrable. They were able to exert control of them, ergo they were theirs.

As for the right to secession it does not exist. The Constitution is silent on the issue but the Articles of Confederation claimed to form a "perpetual Union." The Constitution built upon this claim by asserting "...to form a more perfect Union." Ergo one can argue in a legal sense that the Constitution is also a "perpetual Union." Further more the Constitution has no mechanism to allow for legal secession and while some argue that the 10th Amendment gives states this power, they over look the Federal government's power to suppress rebellion. If the Southern states really were concerned with adhering to the Constitution they would have sued the Federal government or taken the issue of secession to Congress to decide. But they really only cared for the Constitution when used to protect slavery and curtail the power of the Free States.

Well, this can be argued both ways and 150 years and 9 days (c.f. the date of South Carolina's secession) of arguments haven't settled it. Had the Confederacy been able to maintain their independence then the right to secession would have been proven. They didn't and so it was, in effect, disproven.

Regarding who started the war and why, it's too bad you have bought into the anti-Lincoln Lost Cause lies.

In what way?

Read...
Border Wars: Fighting over Slavery before the Civil War by Stanely Harrold.

America in 1857: A Nation on the Brink by Kenneth Stampp

The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History edited by Gary W. Gallagher and Alan T. Nolan.

Why the Civil War Came edited by Gabor S. Boritt

The Road to Disunion by William W. Freehling

At the Precipice by Shearer D. Bowman

I have a large backlog to get through. I do however have a copy of The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History on my shelf partially read. Which of the articles would you suggest? (I was mostly interested in Simpson's article which was a more succinct version of his biography of Grant).
 
No, they're what some people put forth. The fact that this neo-Radical ideal is currently in the ascendency (and arguably now waning as a new generation of writers are starting to question it in the way the neo-Radicals did to the Lost Cause in the 1960-70's) doesn't necessarily make it right. Put forth some of these ideas in the 1950's and you'd get a blizzard of Lost Causers showing that it is against the current grain.

With anything you must let the evidence lead you to conclusions.

The Lost Cause is a political movement invented by Southerns to absolve them from the guilt of slavery. That many in the North have bought in to its lies is a national tragedy. It is akin to the Nazi "Stab in the back" ideology and is no more proper history than Monty Python and the Holy Grail is the true story of the man now known as King Arthur.

I would love to, and it is on my "to do" list. Unfortunately for the next 15 months or so I will be unable to due to commitments to my doctorate.

Lt me know if your schedule clears up. Send me a PM. We can walk the battlefield, see the town and discuss history and 2300AD.

I'd argue you understate both numbers, but the Confederate number hugely. See Weitz's "More Damning Than Slaughter" (and related works). I'd contend that had either side been able to control their desertion problems they would have gained an insurmountable advantage in the field.

As I said, keeping track of the numbers is very difficult. Both sides suffered greatly from desertion. And your right that the side that solved this problem would have great advantage but the Union was less in need as it had a larger population base in the first place.

True, but Lincoln observed that of the 180,000 men on the rolls of McClellan's Field Force in September '62 at least 100,000 had deserted by the 17th September. Lincoln of course ascribes this (rather ludicrously IMHO) to a lack of hard fighting.

There may be something to what Lincoln asserts. Combat focuses one on the task at hand and puts men and their comrades at risk. Given that most soldiers, ignoring the larger political reasons, fight for their friends and comrades. If they are in danger than there is reason to believe that fewer will desert when their presence is most needed.

Also, September was near harvest time and given the significance agricultural played for many of the small farms in the North desertion rose as men headed home to help on the farms.

Well then applying that argument then the existence of Confederate territorial waters is demonstrable. They were able to exert control of them, ergo they were theirs.

The Confederates never exerted real control of their waters. The Union Navy was able to seize and blockade any coastal region they cared to. It was only an initial lack of manpower and ships that prevented the closing of each and every Confederate port.

Well, this can be argued both ways and 150 years and 9 days (c.f. the date of South Carolina's secession) of arguments haven't settled it. Had the Confederacy been able to maintain their independence then the right to secession would have been proven. They didn't and so it was, in effect, disproven.

In the Confederacy yes. But this is true of any international dispute. Was it legal for British ships to stop, search and remove Americans from US flagged ships prior to 1815?

But in the US the legality of rebellion (Whiskey Rebellion, 1791-1794, in western Pennsylvania) and nullification (Nullification Crisis, 1832-1833, South Carolina) had already been deemed illegal and the Hartford Convention during the War of 1812 had drawn political scorn from throughout the rest of the Nation including the South thus killing the Federalist Party. Together these make for a pretty good historical legal case against Secession being legal. The Southern states knew this and so took no action to attempt a legal form of dissolving the Union.

In what way?

You see Lincoln as being somewhere between a bumbling buffoon and a lawless tyrant. He was neither. Yes, he made many mistakes but he learned from these mistakes and worked to correct them. Fully defending the man would require a lot longer than I have here tonight.

I have a large backlog to get through. I do however have a copy of The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History on my shelf partially read. Which of the articles would you suggest? (I was mostly interested in Simpson's article which was a more succinct version of his biography of Grant).

Chapter One is a good overview of why the Lost Cause is not in fact History.

Chapter Two by my old college professor, Gary Gallagher is pretty good as well.

But I think you'll find chapters Six and Seven most interesting. They are a good look at Longstreet and Grant and how their legacies have been distorted by Lost Cause writers.

Benjamin
 
April 1862: Farragut fails to take New Orleans.

If either Richmond had the brains to properly outfit the forts along the Mississippi, or the LA state gov't to withhold enough of the Federal artillery they confiscated to do so, then Farragut's fleet could never have made it up the river. Would they have tried again? Of course, but by that point, the danger would have been identified, and the countermeasures would have been even stronger, and the "Anaconda" strategy would have fallen to pieces, especially with the increased French presence in the Gulf after '62.

New Orleans was the main port of the South and its largest city by far. In the Confederacy, its closest rival was Richmond, which it outweighed by a factor of four in population alone. In terms of commerce, it surpassed all rivals. If the Union had failed to take New Orleans, the blockade would have eventually become untenable, and French and British creditors would have been more likely to provide the credit needed to purchase arms. Maybe this would have just prolonged the war, but given the situation for both sides in late summer 1864, the additional arms that a Confederate New Orleans could provide might have led to a negotiated peace...
 
Top