The Civil War

[Grin&Barrett]

The New England states wanted to secede during the War of 1812.

Here's Ballou's letter

July the 14th, 1861

Washington D.C.

My very dear Sarah:

The indications are very strong that we shall move in a few days -- perhaps tomorrow. Lest I should not be able to write you again, I feel impelled to write lines that may fall under your eye when I shall be no more.

Our movement may be one of a few days duration and full of pleasure -- and it may be one of severe conflict and death to me. Not my will, but thine 0 God, be done. If it is necessary that I should fall on the battlefield for my country, I am ready. I have no misgivings about, or lack of confidence in, the cause in which I am engaged, and my courage does not halt or falter. I know how strongly American Civilization now leans upon the triumph of the Government, and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and suffering of the Revolution. And I am willing -- perfectly willing -- to lay down all my joys in this life, to help maintain this Government, and to pay that debt.

But, my dear wife, when I know that with my own joys I lay down nearly all of yours, and replace them in this life with cares and sorrows -- when, after having eaten for long years the bitter fruit of orphanage myself, I must offer it as their only sustenance to my dear little children -- is it weak or dishonorable, while the banner of my purpose floats calmly and proudly in the breeze, that my unbounded love for you, my darling wife and children, should struggle in fierce, though useless, contest with my love of country?

I cannot describe to you my feelings on this calm summer night, when two thousand men are sleeping around me, many of them enjoying the last, perhaps, before that of death -- and I, suspicious that Death is creeping behind me with his fatal dart, am communing with God, my country, and thee.

I have sought most closely and diligently, and often in my breast, for a wrong motive in thus hazarding the happiness of those I loved and I could not find one. A pure love of my country and of the principles have often advocated before the people and "the name of honor that I love more than I fear death" have called upon me, and I have obeyed.

Sarah, my love for you is deathless, it seems to bind me to you with mighty cables that nothing but Omnipotence could break; and yet my love of Country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me irresistibly on with all these chains to the battlefield.

The memories of the blissful moments I have spent with you come creeping over me, and I feel most gratified to God and to you that I have enjoyed them so long. And hard it is for me to give them up and burn to ashes the hopes of future years, when God willing, we might still have lived and loved together and seen our sons grow up to honorable manhood around us. I have, I know, but few and small claims upon Divine Providence, but something whispers to me -- perhaps it is the wafted prayer of my little Edgar -- that I shall return to my loved ones unharmed. If I do not, my dear Sarah, never forget how much I love you, and when my last breath escapes me on the battlefield, it will whisper your name.

Forgive my many faults, and the many pains I have caused you. How thoughtless and foolish I have oftentimes been! How gladly would I wash out with my tears every little spot upon your happiness, and struggle with all the misfortune of this world, to shield you and my children from harm. But I cannot. I must watch you from the spirit land and hover near you, while you buffet the storms with your precious little freight, and wait with sad patience till we meet to part no more.

But, O Sarah! If the dead can come back to this earth and flit unseen around those they loved, I shall always be near you; in the garish day and in the darkest night -- amidst your happiest scenes and gloomiest hours -- always, always; and if there be a soft breeze upon your cheek, it shall be my breath; or the cool air fans your throbbing temple, it shall be my spirit passing by.

Sarah, do not mourn me dead; think I am gone and wait for thee, for we shall meet again.

As for my little boys, they will grow as I have done, and never know a father's love and care. Little Willie is too young to remember me long, and my blue-eyed Edgar will keep my frolics with him among the dimmest memories of his childhood. Sarah, I have unlimited confidence in your maternal care and your development of their characters. Tell my two mothers his and hers I call God's blessing upon them. O Sarah, I wait for you there! Come to me, and lead thither my children.

Sullivan

 

[Doug]

As for Beauregard who fired upon Sumter, well, he was a hot headed fire eating Southerner.

And God Bless him too - we just needed a few more like him, that's all.

Lincoln was swayed by the northern industrialists who were about to end up paying higher shipping rates because the southern ports were now closed to them. Lincoln lost his chance at preventing war when he forced his own troops to remain at Fort Sumter without the benefit of fresh provisions - even though Lincoln had nearly the entire US Navy blockading the harbor. If it had not been for old "Hot Headed" Beauregard's re-supplying Anderson at the fort they would have starved. Even when Anderson surrendered, it was Beauregard that provided transportation to shore and allowed the Northern troops to leave with their arms and flags intact.

 

[4V50 Gary]

Nah, a few more Stonewall Jacksons would have served the South far better than any number of Beauregards. Jackson would sooner march 1,000 men to their deaths than suffer 10,000 men killed or wounded in battle. If he had survived his wounding (and pneumonia) at Chancellorsville, Gettysburg would probably have been a Confederate victory (but as National Park Historian Edward Bearass mused, "If Jackson was at Gettysburg, he would have stank! Bearass thought highly of Jackson but hated speculative history).

Speaking of leaders, Bragg as commander of the Army of Tennessee was a mistake. Should have left Uncle Joe Johnston in charge. If Bragg was a mistake, the "Gallant Hood" was a disaster (Franklin where seven Conf. Generals were killed along with thousands of their men & Nashville).

Regarding Beauregard's permitting of Anderson to march out with his colors and his arms, that is one of the terms of the honors of war accorded to a defeated foe who fought both honorably & admirably.

One flaw the South had that was avoided by the North was the organization of its railroads. In the North, Sect. of War Stanton appointed a railroad man in charge of all the railroads and he could decide what moved where and when. In the South, the railroads ran for profit and military transports could be seconded to profits. A lot of food supplies and clothing rotted at depots for want of transport to the troops. The North didn't have this problem.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Lincoln?

Arrogant?

Let's take a look at how arrogant he was...

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."


Why that uppity bastard!


"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

That prick! That unbelievable prick! He's taunting the South!

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Oh my god... I simply can't believe the arrogant temerity of this man!

The South could also have prevented bloodshed by jamming PT Beauregard into one of his cannons and firing it out to sea instead of allowing him to fire on Ft. Sumpter.

The South could also have prevented bloodshed BEFORE Abraham Lincoln became President, yet chose to seize Federal property in Southern states such as Ft. Pulaski and the Arsenal at Little Rock, Arkansas.

There was plenty of arrogance to go around, Doug.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Lincoln lost his chance at preventing war when he forced his own troops to remain at Fort Sumter without the benefit of fresh provisions..."

That's a really interesting theory...

But it doesn't mesh up with historic fact.

Beauregard (or his predecessor, I'm not clear about that), fired on the "Star of the West" on January 9, 1861. The Star was attempting to reprovision the Fort.

January 9... January 9...

What's wrong with that date...

OH YEAH!

Abraham Lincoln wasn't innaugurated as President of the United States until March 4, 1861, nearly 3 months AFTER the batteries fired on Star of the West and effectively declared war!

The troops in Ft. Sumpter were there on orders of President James Buchanan, not Lincoln.

As for Beauregard supplying provisions to the defenders of Ft. Sumpter, that's the first I've ever heard of that.

Of course, he WAS the cause of the low provisions in Ft. Sumpter, having fired on the resupply ship and all.

If he actually did supply provisions to Anderson and his men, he may have done that for other reasons, such as his friendship and affection for Anderson.

After all, Beauregard had been Anderson's student at West Point, and when Beauregard graduated, Anderson requested that he be retaind as a staff member because he was so talented in the field of.... artillery.

 

[MuzzleBlast]

No where in the Constitution or anywhere else in US code that I am aware of does it say that a state can't resign from the union. Every state freely decided to join, and applied to join. They weren't warned that it was a deal they couldn't get out of. But, as has been proven through history, might makes right.

 

[Calamity Jane]

What MuzzleBlast said. "Government by consent of the governed" and all.

I do agree with Mike, however, that there was plenty of arrogance to go around.

Haven't seen the Civil War series but would like to - I have heard it's excellent. And what a letter, Grin&Barrett - now I'm going to be heading back to work all teary-eyed. *sniff*

 

[Mike Irwin]

Muzzleblast,

And as the counter argument, nowhere in the Constitution did it say that a state COULD withdraw from the Union.

Immediate impasse.

I think it would be extremely naieve of the Southern legislators to believe that they could simply walk away.

I'm a Northern kind of guy, but I believe this with all my heart...

It was the Southern states' right to attempt to withdraw from the Union.

But it was the Northern states' rights to force them back in.

Even had the Union left the Southern states go, Civil War was absolutely inevitable. Bloody Kansas would have been played out all through the territories between pro and anti-slavery forces, to the point where some event eventually would have touched off governmental response with troops. It would have snowballed.

 

[DaiBando]

To me, the Master Political Stroke of the war was the Emancipation Proclamation.

Here was all of Europe, especially the UK, practically salivating over the demise of the US (some still had designs on the Americas) and ready to come in on the side of the Confederates.

The fact that Lee's invasion of the North was stopped at Antietam was bad enough, but when the Proclamation came out, it put anybody who supported the south in the position of defending slavery. That knocked the props out from under ANY international support.

An interesting point is, what would America look like if the South had won? We'd probably have the Brits in Washington and Oregon and the French in Mexico. The Europeans had always wanted to hem the Americans in on the East Coast from Day One.

Another interesting point is the casualty rate. In those days in Europe, a 10% casualty rate was horrific. In the American Civil War casualty rates over 50% were not uncommon. I think the 9th New York (Hawkins Zouaves) took 80% at Antietam and some Minnesota regiment (2nd?) had 95% in under an hour at Gettysburg when it drove into a gap between Pickett's advancing infantry.

The old truism holds - civil wars are the nastiest and bloodiest.

 

[Fred Hansen]

The governments of the North and the South both had arrogance and ignorance aplenty. The North was initially unwilling to make the war about slavery, an obvious and heinous crime. As DaiBando has pointed out, once Lincoln summoned the courage to do so, the tide was irretrievably turned.

The South was unwilling to abandon a backward practice that was proving to be unmanagable, and unsustainable from an economic point of view, to say nothing of its glaring immorality.

In the end, I think Mr. Ballou said it best in his hauntingly prophetic and sublimely beautiful letter.

Not my will, but thine 0 God, be done.

 

[Kaylee]

And as the counter argument, nowhere in the Constitution did it say that a state COULD withdraw from the Union.

US Constitution, Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, if it don't say they can do it....
... they can't do it.

Legally, that is. In realpolitik of course, might continues to make right. C'est la vie.

I'm convinced the South was legally and Constitutionally in the right. Trouble was, they were legally and Constitutionally in the right while resigning from the Union in order to defend an inherently immoral practice.


-K






"Why you fightin' this war Johnny Reb?"

"Because you're down here, Billy Yank..."

 

[Doug]

There was, without a doubt, arrogance on both sides. Yes, Lincoln's sole purpose was to preserve the Union but, taunting the South was the wrong way to go about it. Remember, not all of the Southern states had seceded by the time of Ft. Sumter.

The South lost the war and it was ultimately Jefferson Davis' fault. He let friendships prevail over sound military doctrine. Braxton Bragg is the supreme example of this. Hood was a very brave and talented officer but he was no commander. In my opinion the war was lost, not in by Lee at Appomattox but by Hood at Franklin and Nashville. Of course, General Sherman's march was the coupe de grace.

Mike Irwin, you shouldn't get so exited about this. Remember, it's ALL small stuff. I won't be baited by you either. I learned a long time ago to walk away from this type of thing. I'll give you the "last word" ala Bill O'Reilly.

4V50 Gary, I agree with you about Stonewall Jackson. Lee felt his loss throughout the war. Both were brilliant men.

 

[Ed Dixon]

After 12 years finally released on DVD this month. Requesting from wife as a stocking stuffer this Xmas.