Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire OMG Another Civil War Thread!

Then along came polyester and phugged everybody up.

Not quite, but close. The north actually exported food through most of the war. Tons of grain went to Russia and other European countries owing to a drought in Europe. As a matter of fact, food exports from the north influenced European foreign policy away from recognizing the Confederacy.
What the north did need from the south, and caused them to force the war, were import tariffs. Since the south had very little industry, they had to import tools, clothing, you name it. So the tariffs were a great source of money for the federal government. Trouble was, to collect the tariffs they had to control the ports.
To control the ports, they had to hold places like Ft Sumter, hence the re supply, and the resulting Confederate gunfire. They painted the south into a corner, forcing them to fire the first shot and appear the aggressor.
If you boil anything down enough, you'll find money and greed at the root. The War Between the States is no different. Slavery in the cotton states meant money, and import tariffs to the government meant money.
7mm

I try to only wear cotton and other natural fibers and such.

The war would have ended a whole lot sooner except for the logistics of the time, tens of thousands of men walking for weeks on end, just to get to a battle, the time spent just trying to feed and arm these men, dirty water and diseases took hugh tolls on both men and mules. It was an ugly time for America.

Has anyone here ever read anything on the slave revolt in Haiti?

This had a direct bearing on things in the United States. Like the very first time the fledgling republic had to deal with a immediate large influx of refugees, and the stories they brought with them. Also the insuing slave revolts in places like Louisiana ( German Coast for example). This had a large impact on the question of just what might be done with freed slaves. How would they be able to become infused with the society. Other than the push to return them to their original homeland.

The Louisiana territory went from slave-holding French, to non-slave Spanish, back to slave holding French, in just a matter of a few decades before finally ending up US territory. During this time, freemen and slave had gained much more liberal rights and privileges in the territory. The Hatian revolt changed all this all over the US of A

There existed many slaveowners in the south that were not abolitionist, but they were truely anti-slavery. It sounds weird, but they did exist. They knew it was more economically feasible to use free labor. Not having to house, feed, and clothe them. But,,,, the also knew the consequences of the sudden release of 1000’s of individuals into the local populance. Akin to dumping a big box of puppies in your nice, clean living room. And what you’d find there after you returned in a few hours.

I admit that although I knew of the slave revolt in Haiti, I never read any of the details about it. I never gave any thought to what influence it might have had on either the north or the south. Thanks for pointing that out, and I'm hoping you would fill in some of the blanks.
JoeBob, I looked into that book, "A Disease In the Public Mind", and it looks very interesting! As a matter of fact, I read the preface on my Nook, and I'm looking forward to reading the book. (I've got 30 pages left of "The General and The Jaguar")
Thanks to you for pointing that out as well.
7mm

The reason that Lincoln went easy on slavery during the first part of the war was that he didn't want the four remaining slave states to secede.

At the outset, Lincoln said he would not interfere with slavery where it existed but it could not be extended to the new territories. But the cotton states knew that, as states were created from these territories, the South would eventually be out voted and slavery would be ended.

As for the remaining slave states, Kentucky said it was neutral but the South invaded it, causing much anger against the South. Maryland was occupied by the Union Army as was Missouri. Delaware saw which way the wind was blowing. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to deprive the South of slave labor and eliminate any chance that England and France would come to the aid of the Confederacy.

Was Sherman's march necessary? Yes. In 1964 Jefferson Davis still thought the South would win. Why? Because voters in the North were getting fed up with all the casualties and Lincoln could lose the 1964 election. In fact, Lincopln himself thought he would lose. McClellan, his opponent, would let the South go. But Sherman's capture of Atlanta turned the sentiment of the voters.

Was secession legal? No court has ever ruled on that question. But if the South could secede, then other states could also secede. And southern states could secede from the Confederacy. The United States would soon be like Central America. Lincoln's point was that since the US was the only real democracy in the world back then, secession would eliminate democracy from the face of the earth. The war would determine whether "any nation conceived and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" could survive and the goal was that "government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Lincoln was right. The federal government encroachments since then, which many of us resent, only exist because the people are dumb enuough to want things that way.

The book I recommended covers the Santa Domingo slave revolt very well and the way it dominated thought in the American South. And in so doing it brings up some points. One, American slavery was relatively benign in that slaves were increasing in numbers. But that fed right into the fears of a slave revolt. Slave owners were hemmed in by the various laws not allowing them to take slaves to some of the territories. So it was like a steam kettle with the lid tied down. They had an ever increasing number of slaves, many of them young men in prime physical condition, and they couldn’t get rid of them.

The slave trade was abolished. So they couldn’t sell them out of the country. They couldn’t take them to new territories. And they couldn’t set them free because they then would be running loose with no means of support and would surely resort to crime and mayhem. The primary reason the South wanted to expand slavery to the territories was not to expand “slave power” as the abolitionists claimed, but to get rid of some of the slaves and lesson the chances of slave revolts.

So basically you're saying he bought us a century and a half.

First off, I would say that taking The Army of Tennessee out of the war would be worth much more to public sentiment than capturing Atlanta. And easily done in conjunction with Thomas' army and Schofield's army, each numbering around 25000 to 30000 troops.
Sherman allowed Hood to go on his merry way, he's lucky Hood was pretty much incompetent as a strategist.
With Hood bottled up or destroyed, the union could have forced Lee's surrender much sooner than April of 1865. At least that's my thinking.

Secondly, secession was legal under the Federal government. They allowed the western countries of Virginia (under federal control) to secede from VA and form the state of West Virginia. (handily adding a few more electoral votes for Lincoln!)

I can see your point about the cotton states going out in spite of Lincoln's promise not to directly interfere with slavery. Unless slavery expanded into other states it was doomed in the U.S. But I still contend that secession didn't necessarily mean war. With VA, TN, and NC refusing to secede, I think a compromise could have been reached short of gunfire. What would the cost be of government funded manumission of slaves versus 4 years of Civil War be?

Once again we see that government went to war to coerce states, not to end slavery!
7mm

" The slave trade was abolished. So they couldn’t sell them out of the country. They couldn’t take them to new territories."

This is where folks like the Lafitte bros and Jim Bowie were making a killing in the illegal slave trade. The would bring them into the port of Galveston, bribe a few local officials, and in turn smuggle them back into US territory in Louisiana. They weren’t the only ones involved in the activity.

Edit!

Btw, the Lafitte boys were also In the pay of the Spanish intelligence service. Just like US General Wilkenson!

Bowie and his brothers made their first fortunes by exploiting a loophole in the laws barring the importation of slaves.

Sort of "We found these Africans wandering around in the swamp, so here they are"! Once they were turned over to the state, the state could sell them as slaves and keep the money. Now they were legal slaves!
The Bowie Boys were entitled to half the price, since they'd "found" them. That meant they could handily outbid other buys. Once they had legally "bought" the slaves at half price, they could make a killing reselling the newly legal African slaves.
It's good work if you can get it!
Bowie did this a while, then he started forging "Spanish Land Grants" for fun and profit.
If he hadn't "Gone To Texas", he'd likely been locked up or hanged!
If he hadn't died at the Alamo, he'd probably have made a helluva Confederate General in his old age.
But that's information for another thread!
Never heard that about Jean Lefitt. I know he helped Jackson defend New Orleans in 1812, but never knew he was mixed up with that snake Wilkerson.
7mm

You are forgetting the real reason for how Sherman conducted his campaign He was in the deep south and for the most part cut off from his supply line. How do you expect he was supposed to feed them while he chased Hood around? Go to the local Whataburger? He took the Southern plantations and farms for 2 reasons. To feed his own and to take it away from the Confederates.

In addition Sherman hated war, but knew if you were in a fight, the best strategy was to eliminate the enemy as quickly as possible.

One has to attempt to view the CW threw their eyes and not ours.

Sherman:

"I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell."


"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster."


"I intend to make Georgia howl."

Sherman's supply lines weren't cut until the Army of Tennessee cut them! The whole idea of Hood going north was to draw Sherman away by threatening his supply lines. Even then, Forrest did more to disrupt Uncle Billy's grub then Hood ever did!
The facts were though, by summer of 1864 Confederate logistics were nearly non existent. Burning barns full of grain didn't matter because the Rebs had no way of getting the grain to the armies! The Confederates had to keep moving from place to place because after a couple days they'd exhausted all the food in the area. Pinning them down in one spot would force them to fight or surrender, and with 100000 troops of his own, and 2 armies of 30000 each to the north of Hood, trapping him wouldn't have been hard.
I've said it before, the power of the Confederate government rested on the Confederate armies.
"Those who aren't skinning can hold a leg" Grant said. What leg was Sherman holding?
7mm

What you don’t get is Sherman had no desire to play nice. He wanted to make the South hurt in every possible way, and did. Your view is from 2020 hindsight and nothing more. It means little now and even less to Sherman then.

You admitted the South had to move because they quickly exhausted the local food supply. Sherman was making sure they had one less move. Along with how much more of this do you want, because I’ll give you all of it and more.

Addition: The South proved it could fight and more than once. More than one fight the North should have won and didn’t. Pinning them wasn’t always the best strategy. Especially on their home ground.

The Army of the Tennessee wasn't going anywhere, it could either go after Sherman or batter itself to destruction against the Federals in Tennessee, Hood chose the latter.

By that stage in the war it was so over-matched Sherman didn't have to go against it.

"Never heard that about Jean Lefitt. I know he helped Jackson defend New Orleans in 1812, but never knew he was mixed up with that snake Wilkerson."

They were operating independent of association with Wilkenson. But were in cahoots with Spanish authorities while they were the principle "businessmen" on Galveston Island.

Maybe but at the outset, nobody had the slightest suspicion that the war would last four years and cost 750,000 lives.

It's always like that. In World War I all the nations thouight the war would be over by Christmas, 1914.

And LBJ would never have started/escalated the viet anm War had he kknown it would cost 58,000 American lives, not to mention the lives of many Vietnamese, and that our aims would not be achieved.

You should really try to understand Sherman, rather than dwell on what you think he should have done.

Sherman:

“My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.”

But just like the Irish and the war crimes of Cromwell the South never learned to fear Yankees, just hate them for 150 years and more.