49 ms·

At first glance one might suspect that South's disinclination to arm black soldiers would harm their ability to field a large proportion of their population, bu

At first glance one might suspect that South's disinclination to arm black soldiers would harm their ability to field a large proportion of their population, but that wasn't the case. The ready availability of slave labor enabled free men, who would have otherwise been required at home to work the fields or bring in the crops, to go off and fight instead. IIRC, around 80% of able-bodied free men in the South fought in the war. > How did the confederacy think they could win given that difference? When your country gets invaded, you don't grab your abacas, you grab your gun.

shkkmo 3y ago
> When your country gets invaded, you don't grab your abacas, you grab your gun. The confederacy was not being invaded when they chose to start the war.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Clubber 3y ago
  On the night of December 26, Major Anderson's men were ordered to turn their overcoats to hide the military buttons and to take off their caps, so as to be taken for the civilian laborers who passed daily between Forts Sumter and Moultrie. The ruse was successful, a turncoat matter one might say. The act of soldiers posing as civilians in war historically has been viewed as an act of perfidy. With the ruse, Union troops took Fort Sumter without a shot fired. They had spiked the guns at Fort Moultrie and set fire to their carriages. Some at the time and later considered this clandestine move to Fort Sumter an act of war, the first in the coming conflict. US Secretary of War at the time, John B. Floyd, could not believe Major Anderson had made such a move, because there was no order for such an act. He asked the major to explain his action. ... Finally, Lincoln acted. On March 29, he had sent a note to his secretary of war: “I desire than an expedition, to move by sea, be got ready to sail as early as the 6th of April next.” Despite many rumors of evacuation, Fort Sumter apparently was to be reinforced, a move expressly forbidden by Southern authorities after months of patient and unsatisfying negotiations regarding the evacuation of the fort. US Naval Captain Gustavus Fox, commanding the reinforcement expedition, was instructed to enter Charleston Harbor and send a boatload of provisions to Fort Sumter and to do no more, unless he was stopped or fired upon. In either of those cases, he was to try to force a passage, with the help of US Navy ships beyond the harbor, and supply the fort not only with provisions but also with troops. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4112687/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4112687/
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    Even with your extremely selective quoting, (including the exclusion of what that ruse was required and the food shortage that necessitated resupply) there is still nothing there that qualifies as a invasion.
    - Clubber 3y ago
      >your extremely selective quoting If you read the article I linked, Anderson took the fort on his own accord. Did you want me to paste the entire article in here or something? What's extremely selective about it? I linked the article. >including the exclusion of what that ruse was required Got any references or anything to explain what you mean? >food shortage that necessitated resupply Anderson took the fort and held it for three months. I'm certain he needed resupply. Did you think the CSA was gonna give him food after he took their fort?
      - shkkmo 3y ago
        It wasn't their fort. It was the property of the US army and was taken by a commander who that article describes as very sympathetic to the southern cause, but honorably loyal to the army. There is no indication that Anderson had any desire to "invade" the south, but rather the opposite. The CSA fired at the Star of the West to prevent resupply of Anderson. The CSA also chose to fire at the fort even though they knew that Anderson would surrender due to lack of food within days. The CSA repeatedly chose violence to take a fort that a they couldn't get through negotiation and thus started a very bloody war. Perhaps that war was inevitable and it clearly stemmed from hostile choices on both sides, but the decision to officially start that war by the CSA was preemptive and absolutely not a response to any invasion.
        Clubber 3y ago
        From the CSA's point of view, it was their fort on their land that the Union not only took but were reinforcing. It was a defensive fort at the mouth of one of their most important eastern seaboard harbors. A fort that if taken would prevent the CSA from getting anything shipped through there, in or out. It was considered an act of war and the CSA retaliated by shelling it for 3 days after they refused to leave, amazingly with no casualties. Interestingly, the CSA commander was a protege of Anderson (who took the fort). You can't just hand wave that away because the CSA were "the bad guys," you have to be able to view both sides of it to fully understand the war, the causes and the affects, not play favorites, and especially not view it through modern eyes. There were no laws banning secession and it was deemed illegal by the SCOTUS ex-post facto. Do you think if the Southern states thought they wouldn't be able to leave the Union when they joined in 1788 they ever would have joined in the first place? Doubtful. >There is no indication that Anderson had any desire to "invade" the south, but rather the opposite. Sure, but that act has obvious consequences. The first battle of the Civil War was Bull Run/Manassas. It was fought in Virginia because the Union troops crossed into the CSA territory to take the capitol. That's an invasion, an invasion that was the consequence of firing on Sumter, which was a consequence of Anderson taking it and Lincoln reinforcing it. Had cooler heads prevailed, we might not have had to lose 700k+ people. Although the Civil War officially began when Confederate troops shelled Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, the fighting didn’t commence in earnest until the Battle of Bull Run, fought months later in Virginia, just 25 miles from Washington D.C. Under public pressure to end the war in 90 days, President Lincoln had pushed the cautious Gen. McDowell to embark on a campaign to capture the Confederate capital in Richmond, but McDowell’s troops were stopped at Bull Run by Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard’s Rebel forces. The Federals retreated to Washington, where the Lincoln administration retooled for a war that would be waged at great human and financial cost https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/bull-run https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/bull-ru...
- marcusverus 3y ago
  > The confederacy was not being invaded when they chose to start the war. Marching into a country and killing hundreds of thousands of men isn't an invasion? What do you call it where you're from?
- cykros 3y ago
  They seceded from the Union. The war was started when the Union under Lincoln asserted that this was unacceptable. Which, in fairness, there had been no prior precedent for. This is why many southerners know it as "The War of Northern Aggression."
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    > This is why many southerners know it as "The War of Northern Aggression." That's called spin/branding. The initial acts of violence and aggression were taken by the southern states. The southern states could have chosen a legal or political solution. Instead the CSA decided to unilaterally succeed and then used violence to take a fort that they were unsuccessful in negotiating for.
watwut 3y ago
Slave owners did not had to join army, because they were thought to be needed to keep control over slaves. The slaves were seen as a threat that could start the rebellion of some kind.

shkkmo 3y ago

> When your country gets invaded, you don't grab your abacas, you grab your gun. The confederacy was not being invaded when they chose to start the war.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Clubber 3y ago
On the night of December 26, Major Anderson's men were ordered to turn their overcoats to hide the military buttons and to take off their caps, so as to be taken for the civilian laborers who passed daily between Forts Sumter and Moultrie. The ruse was successful, a turncoat matter one might say. The act of soldiers posing as civilians in war historically has been viewed as an act of perfidy. With the ruse, Union troops took Fort Sumter without a shot fired. They had spiked the guns at Fort Moultrie and set fire to their carriages. Some at the time and later considered this clandestine move to Fort Sumter an act of war, the first in the coming conflict. US Secretary of War at the time, John B. Floyd, could not believe Major Anderson had made such a move, because there was no order for such an act. He asked the major to explain his action. ... Finally, Lincoln acted. On March 29, he had sent a note to his secretary of war: “I desire than an expedition, to move by sea, be got ready to sail as early as the 6th of April next.” Despite many rumors of evacuation, Fort Sumter apparently was to be reinforced, a move expressly forbidden by Southern authorities after months of patient and unsatisfying negotiations regarding the evacuation of the fort. US Naval Captain Gustavus Fox, commanding the reinforcement expedition, was instructed to enter Charleston Harbor and send a boatload of provisions to Fort Sumter and to do no more, unless he was stopped or fired upon. In either of those cases, he was to try to force a passage, with the help of US Navy ships beyond the harbor, and supply the fort not only with provisions but also with troops. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4112687/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4112687/
- shkkmo 3y ago
  Even with your extremely selective quoting, (including the exclusion of what that ruse was required and the food shortage that necessitated resupply) there is still nothing there that qualifies as a invasion.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >your extremely selective quoting If you read the article I linked, Anderson took the fort on his own accord. Did you want me to paste the entire article in here or something? What's extremely selective about it? I linked the article. >including the exclusion of what that ruse was required Got any references or anything to explain what you mean? >food shortage that necessitated resupply Anderson took the fort and held it for three months. I'm certain he needed resupply. Did you think the CSA was gonna give him food after he took their fort?
    - shkkmo 3y ago
      It wasn't their fort. It was the property of the US army and was taken by a commander who that article describes as very sympathetic to the southern cause, but honorably loyal to the army. There is no indication that Anderson had any desire to "invade" the south, but rather the opposite. The CSA fired at the Star of the West to prevent resupply of Anderson. The CSA also chose to fire at the fort even though they knew that Anderson would surrender due to lack of food within days. The CSA repeatedly chose violence to take a fort that a they couldn't get through negotiation and thus started a very bloody war. Perhaps that war was inevitable and it clearly stemmed from hostile choices on both sides, but the decision to officially start that war by the CSA was preemptive and absolutely not a response to any invasion.
      - Clubber 3y ago
        From the CSA's point of view, it was their fort on their land that the Union not only took but were reinforcing. It was a defensive fort at the mouth of one of their most important eastern seaboard harbors. A fort that if taken would prevent the CSA from getting anything shipped through there, in or out. It was considered an act of war and the CSA retaliated by shelling it for 3 days after they refused to leave, amazingly with no casualties. Interestingly, the CSA commander was a protege of Anderson (who took the fort). You can't just hand wave that away because the CSA were "the bad guys," you have to be able to view both sides of it to fully understand the war, the causes and the affects, not play favorites, and especially not view it through modern eyes. There were no laws banning secession and it was deemed illegal by the SCOTUS ex-post facto. Do you think if the Southern states thought they wouldn't be able to leave the Union when they joined in 1788 they ever would have joined in the first place? Doubtful. >There is no indication that Anderson had any desire to "invade" the south, but rather the opposite. Sure, but that act has obvious consequences. The first battle of the Civil War was Bull Run/Manassas. It was fought in Virginia because the Union troops crossed into the CSA territory to take the capitol. That's an invasion, an invasion that was the consequence of firing on Sumter, which was a consequence of Anderson taking it and Lincoln reinforcing it. Had cooler heads prevailed, we might not have had to lose 700k+ people. Although the Civil War officially began when Confederate troops shelled Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, the fighting didn’t commence in earnest until the Battle of Bull Run, fought months later in Virginia, just 25 miles from Washington D.C. Under public pressure to end the war in 90 days, President Lincoln had pushed the cautious Gen. McDowell to embark on a campaign to capture the Confederate capital in Richmond, but McDowell’s troops were stopped at Bull Run by Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard’s Rebel forces. The Federals retreated to Washington, where the Lincoln administration retooled for a war that would be waged at great human and financial cost https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/bull-run https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/bull-ru...
marcusverus 3y ago
> The confederacy was not being invaded when they chose to start the war. Marching into a country and killing hundreds of thousands of men isn't an invasion? What do you call it where you're from?
cykros 3y ago
They seceded from the Union. The war was started when the Union under Lincoln asserted that this was unacceptable. Which, in fairness, there had been no prior precedent for. This is why many southerners know it as "The War of Northern Aggression."
- shkkmo 3y ago
  > This is why many southerners know it as "The War of Northern Aggression." That's called spin/branding. The initial acts of violence and aggression were taken by the southern states. The southern states could have chosen a legal or political solution. Instead the CSA decided to unilaterally succeed and then used violence to take a fort that they were unsuccessful in negotiating for.

watwut 3y ago

Slave owners did not had to join army, because they were thought to be needed to keep control over slaves. The slaves were seen as a threat that could start the rebellion of some kind.