[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [DL] What happened to the Union?
At 09:45 PM 5/5/2002, Alex and/or Heidi Johnson wrote:
>For the record, I am not an expert on the Civil War, but have read a number
>of books on the subject.
Well, I kinda *am* an expert on The War, and have read a Civil War
book at least every fortnight since I was six, so please allow me to
respond, just for fun, too.;-)
>In the Civil War, the Confederacy faced this problem much more than the
>Union. The Union could
>state it's goal easily. "Preserve the Union and free the slaves."
Errr, patently wrong. The Union's War aims waxed, waned and
mutated over the course of the conflict. It went from "Preserve the Union"
to "Preserve the Union and free (some of) the slaves, unless the latter
notion offends you overmuch, Missouri, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky,
Tennessee & D.C." to "Heal the wounds of the nation" to "Make the South pay."
> The similarly stated goal of the Confederacy was "Preserve States
> rights and
>enforce slavery."
For the vast majority of the men in gray, it was "Protect your
homes and families". As Pres. Davis articulated it, "All we ask is to be
let alone."
I think it's rather one-sided as to which side had an easier time
getting across its goal(s).
> The problem it faced was as the war continued, they had
>to continue to violate those principles to maintain the war.
You speak of the South as it if it were made up of nothing but
South Carolina fire-eaters. *Some* of the tiny minority of the Southern
slaveholding aristocracy objected to such moves as manumission, but the
vast majority of Southerners could care less about state's rights or
slavery, one way or the other.
> The central govt had to grab more power from the States throughout the
> war. They
>started to offer to free slaves to increase man-power in the war. This
>backfired when it showed their statement that slavery was the natural and
>happiest state for the slaves in their nation was false. Thus they lost
>popular support very rapidly.
Southern manumission occurred on March 26th, 1865, and public
reaction was more fairly described as mixed--welcome to those defending
home and hearth, anathema to most whose fortunes were tied up in chattel
slavery.
In any event, during March 1865 the rather minor public backlash
over manumission was far from the most pressing of the Confederacy's problems.
>True, but as I mentioned above, it directly violated the basic building
>blocks of the Confederacy. Even offering freedom to slaves who fought
>created morale problems.
For some, yes. For others, no. Read some first-person accounts of
that era.
>The Confederacy had a smaller man-power reserve to draw from and less
>popular support.
The first point is beyond question, the second is accurate only
during certain times and in certain places during the long struggle.
> It seems strange that the Union would weaken dramatically,
>while the Confederacy got stronger when the war was extended.
Wars are not decided by men or machines, but by the collective
will of the combatants to continue the fight.
In 1878, the Confederacy is fighting for its very survival against
a people who have proven they will use ANY means--no matter how
terrible--to subjugate them. For the Union, with slavery long dead, it's
about trying to force their will on a part of the continent that after 17
bloody years is still having none of it. The Civil War has become the
Union's Vietnam, if you will.
>I'm going to snip the rest, because I am already waxing way too long. I
>also don't mind the changes in the world, since it makes the world more
>interesting. (Well, other than the Detroit invasion.)
Well met, sir, and at least we agree the Detroit idea sucked.
Deo Vindice,
Mr. Christopher L. McGlothlin, M.Ed.
Freelance RPG Writer At-Large
Member, Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts & Design
Moderator of the New Gamers Order Listserver
Southern by the Grace of God