Firelock76The smart thing to do would have been to give up some ground in the west, re-enforce Lee heavily in Virginia, then try to manuver the Army of the Potomac into a situation where it could be wrecked and Washington isolated.
I agree completely. From the very beginning Lincoln was afraid that Washington would be cut off from the rest of the country.
"Of course, the Confederates could have "won the war" by never starting it in the first place by firing on Fort Sumter. Public opinion in the North "prior to" was it was a shame the Southern states had seceded, but no-one was willing to go to war to force them back into the Union."
I think that Jefferson Davis, had he been able to operate as he wanted to, would have done just that but he was overwhelmed by the fire eaters. He had argued that states should not secede individually but act together and he was ignored. When he authorized General Pierre Gustav Toutant Beauregard to fire on Sumpter he believed it would take about 3 months for Lincoln to get the Congress back so he could begin to raise an army. The next day Lincoln declared a national emergency and called up 75,000 men.
James McPherson has called the Civil War the Second American Revolution.
BaltACDWhen the Union gained control of various areas
Your map shows how little headway the Union made in 1862. They did a little better in 1863 but not a lot. However the victories at Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Chattanooga were important. You can also see that when Longstreet joined Bragg to defeat the Union at Chickamauga he postponed the march to Atlanta by a year. But Roscrans hung in at Chattanooga and the 11th and 12 corps came and in 1864 Sherman with his Bummers did get to Atlanta and went on to the sea. Meanwhile at Petersburg Lee's men were holding Richmond but they could not do it forever, especially with Longstreet's men gone. In 1865 what was left fell.
schlimmBut Longstreet's contrary strategy of pure defense to exact a heavy toll on Union armies while preserving less easily replaced Confederates troops and supplies also works in illuminating "what if" counterfactual discussions.
In a brilliant effort James Longstreet sent his 12,000 men by train from Richmond to Chickamauga. The rail lines were almost totally worn out or destroyed. He had to go by way of Mobile and the journey was 800 miles.
The rail lines were so degraded he only managed to get half of his force to Chickamauga for the battle. Still he and Bragg won and pushed the Yankees back to Chattanooga. But it was only half a victory. Had the railroads been in better shape he would have had all of his men and pushed the Yankees back to Nashville. Sherman would then have had to fight to take Chattanooga. If he had to do that maybe, just maybe, he would have been unable to continue to Atlanta.
But hey, the last part of this, the important part, is as you say counterfactual.
John WRJames McPherson has called the Civil War the Second American Revolution.
McPherson also maintains that Antietam, not the one-two punch of Vicksburg and Gettysburg a year later, was the real turning point in the war.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmMcPherson also maintains that Antietam, not the one-two punch of Vicksburg and Gettysburg a year later, was the real turning point in the war.
I don't recall that from McPherson but perhaps I was asleep. It sure sounds like something he would say.
But why did he say it? Because it was (sort of) a Union victory? Or because it gave him the chance he needed to issue the Emancipation Proclamation which he believed would keep Britain from offering to broker an armistice?
Crossroads of Freedom: Antietem 2004. It restored morale in the North and kept Lincoln's party in control of Congress. It crushed Confederate hopes of British intervention. And it freed Lincoln to deliver the Emancipation Proclamation, which instantly changed the character of the war.
I don't think the Battle of Antietam itself put a stop to any British intervention as much as the Emancipation Proclamation did. Turning the Union cause, however tentatively, into a crusade to eliminate slavery in the South made it impossible for the British government, or anyone else's government to recognize the legitamacy of the Confederacy. As long as the slavery question was left out the possibility was there. Throw slavery in and everything changed. At any rate, at the beginning of the war General Lee wasn't expecting any help from any foreign power at all. "We have to do this alone, no-one will help us" he said. He believed anyone in the south expecting foreign intervention was fooling themselves.
The Union victory at Antietam, however tenuous, was in the end a lost opportunity. A more aggressive Union commander than McClellan would have destroyed the Army of Northern Virginia then and there. He outnumbered Lee more than two-to-one, yet fought the battle in such a haphazard fashion Lee was able to survive and retreat back into Virginia.
My favorite Stonewall Jackson story comes out of the Battle of Antietam. Lee's army was literally fighting for survival, and as Lee was riding Jacksons part of the line he saw a soldier break and run for the rear. Lee had his staff officers arrest the man, then he turned him over to Jackson with orders ro shoot him for desertion in the face of the enemy. When Lee left Jackson turned to the man and said:
"All right, we're in a bad way and we need every man, so this is what I'm going to do. I'm going to give you a musket and put you pack on the firing line and let you fight for your life. If you aquit yourself well nothing more will be said."
"But sir," the man said, "What about General Lee?"
"General Lee is not himself today" said Jackson. "When this is over he won't remember and I won't remind him. Now go and do your duty!"
Happy ending time: the soldier survived the battle and the war. After the war he ran a ferry in the Lexington Virginia area and a regular customer was Robert E. Lee. The man had no animosity toward Lee either. Good story, huh?
Mr. Schlimm called this a fascinating discussion, and it is! The Civil War is a fascinating subject. If fact interest in the Civil War has been described as a "big hole in the ground that once you fall into, there's no climbing out of it again!" Well, I've never fallen into the hole, but I've sure walked around the edge and looked in!
One of the most amazing things, to me at least, is the interest in the American Civil War in other countries around the world. That's really one of the most astounding things about the Civil War there is.
John WR schlimmBut Longstreet's contrary strategy of pure defense to exact a heavy toll on Union armies while preserving less easily replaced Confederates troops and supplies also works in illuminating "what if" counterfactual discussions. In a brilliant effort James Longstreet sent his 12,000 men by train from Richmond to Chickamauga. The rail lines were almost totally worn out or destroyed. He had to go by way of Mobile and the journey was 800 miles. The rail lines were so degraded he only managed to get half of his force to Chickamauga for the battle. Still he and Bragg won and pushed the Yankees back to Chattanooga. But it was only half a victory. Had the railroads been in better shape he would have had all of his men and pushed the Yankees back to Nashville. Sherman would then have had to fight to take Chattanooga. If he had to do that maybe, just maybe, he would have been unable to continue to Atlanta. But hey, the last part of this, the important part, is as you say counterfactual.
Johnny
The Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves. It expressly did not apply to slaves in areas under Union control, and the slave owners in the Confederacy did not recognize Mr. Lincoln's authority, for they were under the government in Richmond, not the government in Washington.
Incidentally, the war not a civil war, for a civil war occurs when two factions struggle for the control of the same government. The southern states had their own government, which was in Richmond, and they wanted to be independent of the government in Washington.
If the railroads of the Confederacy could not move its armies, what did the decline of its railroads contribute to the South's general economic collapse?
Deggesty The Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves. It expressly did not apply to slaves in areas under Union control, and the slave owners in the Confederacy did not recognize Mr. Lincoln's authority, for they were under the government in Richmond, not the government in Washington. Incidentally, the war not a civil war, for a civil war occurs when two factions struggle for the control of the same government. The southern states had their own government, which was in Richmond, and they wanted to be independent of the government in Washington.
Two points [from the Wiki]: "It is common to encounter a claim that the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave. As a result of the Proclamation, many slaves were freed during the course of the war, beginning with the day it took effect. Eyewitness accounts at places such as Hilton Head, South Carolina,[53] and Port Royal, South Carolina,[52] record celebrations on January 1 as thousands of blacks were informed of their new legal status of freedom.
Estimates of the number of slaves freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation are uncertain. One contemporary estimate put the 'contraband' population of Union-occupied North Carolina at 10,000, and the Sea Islands of South Carolina also had a substantial population. Those 20,000 slaves were freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation."[12] This Union-occupied zone where freedom began at once included parts of eastern North Carolina, the Mississippi Valley, northern Alabama, the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, a large part of Arkansas, and the Sea Islands of Georgia and South Carolina.[54] Although some counties of Union-occupied Virginia were exempted from the Proclamation, the lower Shenandoah Valley, and the area around Alexandria were covered.[12]"I realize some in the South still call it "The War between the States" or "The War of Northern Aggression." But most definitions of civil war refer to a war between organized groups within the same nation state. The American Civil War was a conflict based on regional differences. Secession was regarded as an invalid action (dating back to James Calhoun's Nullification Doctrine) by the majority and the original purpose of the war was to prevent dissolution of the United States.
While it's true the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves in the non-seceded states, nor did it free any slaves in areas not occupied by Union forces, it did setttle the question of what the US Army was to do with any runaways or slaves in areas that they conquered.
Up to that point as Union forces approched slave holding areas many slaves on hearing of the approach of Yankee soldiers ran away toward the Yankees hoping for freedom. The US Army commanders didn't know what to do with them. There's a military saying that "when in doubt, ' The Book' prevails", but "The Book" didn't cover this situation. Finally there was a policy, the policy was the liberation and removal of a vital labor force from the Southern economy.
Just how enthusiastic the Union soldiers were about fighting to liberate slaves is an open question. Historians just don't seem to be sure about this one and I'm not going to get into it, although I'm sure there were plenty of mixed opinons from the commanding generals on down.
schlimmCrossroads of Freedom: Antietem 2004.
You sum it all up in a nutshell, Schlimm.
Firelock76I don't think the Battle of Antietam itself put a stop to any British intervention as much as the Emancipation Proclamation did.
I think the two issues are so tightly intertwined that it is hard to know which, if any, is more important. When Lincoln first proposed issuing the Emancipation Proclamation William Seward advised him to delay it until the Union had a victory. Otherwise people sympathetic to the Confederates could dismiss it as mere posturing. Lincoln took his advice. As it was it took a bit of time for the Emancipation Proclamation to be accepted as real. However, it was and there was never again a suggestion that Britain should broker an armistice.
I enjoyed your anecdote about Lee and Jackson. Lee has been rumored to have been suffering from the early stages of a neurological impairment that affected his cognitive ability. I wonder if that is what Jackson referred to.
DeggestyJohn, Longstreet did not take his corps from Charleston to Augusta to Atlanta? All of these lines were in place in 1851.
You are right, Johnny. William Walker and John Breckenridge came in from the west to support Bragg at Chickamauga. Part of their forces went by way of Mobile and part went straight east at Meridian. They met at Montgomery, went north to Atlanta where they used the same rail line as Longstreet did.
This comes from Railroads in the Civil War: The Impact of Management on Victory and Defeat by John E. Clark, Jr. He has a map of Confederate uses of the railroad for the battle of Chickamauga on page 90.
John
DeggestyThe Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves.
I understand this differently than you do, Johnny. From the beginning abolitionists urged Abe Lincoln to either sign an executive order freeing the slaves. Lincoln knew he could not for if he did so a Union slave owner would immediately file an action in the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Taney would strike down the order and that would leave slaves in a worse position. Lincoln knew that slavery was legal. He insisted that his commanders (who did try to emancipate escaped slaves) return the slaves to their owners as that is what the law required.
Ambrose Burnside wrote Abe a letter pointing out that when he and other commanders did return slaves the Confederates put them to work assisting in the war effort by digging earthworks and doing similar things. Abe started turning that over in his mind. In the Dred Scott decison Chief Justice Taney had ruled that slaves were not people but property. A light bulb (or perhaps a gas lamp) went on in his head. It was a well established rule of law that property used by one side to aid them in the conflict could legitimately be seized by the other side. If Confederates used slaves in the war effort he had the right to seize them to the extent he was able to. With the Emancipation Proclamation he did just that.
Since large numbers of slaves were escaping to Union lines those slaves were in fact freed by the Emancipation. Abe was careful to limit it to the places that were still in rebellion because they could not possibly go before Roger Taney and file a lawsuit.
DeggestyIncidentally, the war not a civil war, for a civil war occurs when two factions struggle for the control of the same government. The southern states had their own government, which was in Richmond, and they wanted to be independent of the government in Washington.
This is a fascinating point. I've read more about Lincoln and the Civil war than I have read about anything else except, perhaps, trains. I've never ever encountered your observation before.
What you say is certainly true. I hope you'll excuse me if I continue to call it the Civil War. But you have given me a lot to think about.
schlimmThe American Civil War was a conflict based on regional differences. Secession was regarded as an invalid action (dating back to James Calhoun's Nullification Doctrine) by the majority and the original purpose of the war was to prevent dissolution of the United States.
I completely agree. However, had the issue of secession been taken to the Supreme Court I think a strong case could have been made that it was legal and a Taney Court might well have ruled for the Confederacy. Instead of a judicial solution the Confederacy choose a political solution. Ultimately the question was political resolved and we know what the resolution was.
John what Stonewall was referring to when he said "General Lee is not himself today..." wasn't any kind of neurological disorder.
What it amounted to was this: At Antietam McClellan had shown up where Lee never expected him to and at twice Lee's strength. Lee didn't know about the "missing orders" yet but that's another story. Anyway, Lee saw his invasion of Maryland was about to come apart it the worst possible way, he was going to fight for his army's life, and he was furious! So, when he saw a soldier not doing his duty he reacted as any angry man would. Stonewall knew it would pass in time, so he bent his own rules about desertion in the face of the enemy (you didn't want to do that if you were with Jackson, my God no! Jackson didn't care about polished boots, shiny brass, razor-sharp pressed trousers, or any other military stuff like that, but you WOULD obey orders and do your duty, or else!) just this once.
I've never heard of Lee having any kind of neurological disorder, but in the spring of 1863, April I think, Lee would suffer a mild heart attack. Eventually he developed what some present -day Civil War buff doctors believe was angina pectoris, and which would eventually kill him in 1870
Oh, and EVERONE calls it "The Civil War" now, even most people down South, who didn't like having it called that since it didn't meet the classic definition of a "civil war". It's amazing all the different names they gave it, the "War of Northern Aggression", the "War Between the States", the "War for the Southern Confederacy", the "War for Southern Independence" , and so on. It's a lot easier for all concerned now to call it the Civil War and have done with it.
However, in the center of town in Newton NJ, there's a Civil War monument dedicated to the men who fought in the "Great War of the Rebellion"! Looks like the Yankees had another name for it too!
Firelock,
General Lee must have been angry to order someone killed because of his anger. Fortunately for the soldier General Jackson knew his commander well. As well as the soldier Lee would have had killed.
As far as Newton, New Jersey goes I guess some Yankees had another name for that war.
Actually, Abe Lincoln was pretty angry with Lee. The United States gave Robert E. Lee the best education then available in the country and followed that with a career in the Army. Those were opportunities Abe never got. And when Lee's country needed him, well, Lee considered Virginia to be his country. So Abe decided Lee would never ever be able to return to his home. He made it into Arlington Cemetery.
Yes, it is a lot easier to call our recent unpleasantness "The Civil War." But I'm not sure you are convinced.
I've taken some CW history classes at our public library. Always been interested since my great-grandfather was Union cavalry scout for MO, the other one came from Ireland and laid track for Frisco, starting our heritage with that road.
Anyway, he's very knowledgeable about the war and he stresses the logistics that were a nightmare for the South with many different guages. They would have to take valuable time to transfer troops and material from one line to another, so I'm sure that partly contributed to the problem.
SunnylandThey would have to take valuable time to transfer troops and material from one line to another, so I'm sure that partly contributed to the problem.
It is true that rail lines within a city would not connect and passengers and freight would have to get off one train and move to the other. It seems to me that the change in gauge wasn't all that important. If you have to get off your first train and walk or get a carriage to get to the second one the fact of a gauge change should not make a big difference. This situation was also true in the north. For example, the New York and Erie Railroad used a 6 foot wide gauge in order that no other railroad's equipment could run on its track and its own equipment could not wander onto and other line and get lost. In those days railroads were afraid that other roads would steal there equipment. That was true both in the north and the south. So while lack of connections was a big problem in the Confederacy it was also a problem in the Union.
Of course, the US Military Railroad which the Union built into the Confederacy to supply its troops had no such problems.
Do you mean your Great Grandfather was a cavalry scout for the Union on the Mobile & Ohio Railroad?
Well no, it wasn't Lincoln's decision to turn the Custis-Lee plantation into what became Arlington National Cemetary. That decision was made by General Montgomery Meigs who was (I think, could be wrong on this) chief quartermaster for the US Army. It was really an act of spite, ensuring Lee and his family couldn't go home again.
In actual fact, it was Mrs. Lee's home, having inherited it from her father, George Washington Custis. Lee himself didn't own the property, although he did act as the executor of his father-in-laws will.
Here's a fun fact: Ever go to the Smithsonian, or Valley Forge, Yorktown? The sections of George Washingtons tent complex on display were used during the lawn wedding and reception of Robert E, Lee and Mary Custis. They passed into George W. Custis' possesion after Washington's death.
Firelock76Well no, it wasn't Lincoln's decision to turn the Custis-Lee plantation into what became Arlington National Cemetary. That decision was made by General Montgomery Meigs who was (I think, could be wrong on this) chief quartermaster for the US Army. It was really an act of spite, ensuring Lee and his family couldn't go home again.
I've known the factoid about Lincoln and the Custis-Lee plantation for so long that I've forgotten where I learned it. And now you tell me it was Meigs and not Lincoln's decision. It does occur to me that the two people involved may have known each others feelings and be in agreement. One thing is clear: Abe Lincoln did not try to talk General Meigs out of it.
I've been to the Smithsonian several times but not recently but I don't recall seeing the tent display. However I believe Martha Washington was a Custis.
Yes, Martha Washington's first husband was a Custis, George I think his name was. (Mind you, I've got two BIG glasses of Corvousier "The Brandy of Napoleon" in me right now and I feel GOOD, good enough to grab a musket and take Vienna, as a matter of fact!)
Martha's maiden name was Dandridge. Anyhoo, she married George Custis at 19, was a widow at 28, lot's of things that could 'carry you off' in those days, as my mother-in-law would say, and married George Washington at 29. Her son by her first marriage fathered George Washington Custis.
The Custis mansion and estate in Arlington was supposed to pass to Mary Custis Lee's son, G.W.C. Lee, but the appropriation of the grounds for Arlington Cemetery obviated that. G.W.C. Lee sued the US government in the 1880's for the property value and won, I believe he was awarded close to $750,000 for it.
Man, are we havin' fun here or what? That incredible Civil War, it won't EVER go away, will it?
Firelock76That incredible Civil War, it won't EVER go away, will it?
I agree, The Civil War will never go away. But what's the point of living in America if we can't refight the Civil War now and again? Since you're feeling so close to Napoleon no doubt it will give you great insight into his war tactics of seizing interior lines. Perhaps you should be teaching at West Point. Then I could be confident that our Army would understand the importance of Civil War railroads.
By the way did you know that The General which now resides in Big Shanty Museum, Kennesaw, Georgia was built by the Rogers Locomotive Works in Paterson, New Jersey?
As to the Dandridges, I have seen a statement to the effect that the Dandridges were quite possessive. George Washington was willing to manumit his slaves, but Martha absolutely refused manumit hers. George Washington's adopted son (Martha's grandson), did not manumit his slaves, but left the task to his son-in-law, Robert E. Lee--which added to General Lee's worries in, I recall, 1863.
Deggesty As to the Dandridges, I have seen a statement to the effect that the Dandridges were quite possessive. George Washington was willing to manumit his slaves, but Martha absolutely refused manumit hers. George Washington's adopted son (Martha's grandson), did not manumit his slaves, but left the task to his son-in-law, Robert E. Lee--which added to General Lee's worries in, I recall, 1863.
Why not just say "free" his slaves?
DeggestyGeorge Washington's adopted son (Martha's grandson), did not manumit his slaves, but left the task to his son-in-law, Robert E. Lee--which added to General Lee's worries in, I recall, 1863.
And I have heard that Robert E. Lee did not free the plantation slaves when he inherited the plantation as his father-in-law had provided. He kept them in slavery for some time.
What would have been the result of immediately telling the slaves. "You're free?" I do not know how many slaves G.W. Custis had, but there would have been a number of unemployed men, women, and children wandering around, looking for shelter and sustenance. I do not know any of the details of what General Lee worked out, but he already had the responsibility of leading an army that was resisting the invading army (remember that most of the people in the Confederate States considered themselves to be in a country that was separate and distinct from the United States), and this task added to his load.
Incidentally, Genweral Robert E. Lee never had even one slave himself, and General Hiram Ulysses (those were his given names) Grant did have at least one slave.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.