Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [civilwarwest] Politics of war

Expand Messages
  • tsalagibra@aol.com
    Ralph, I
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 4, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      << The question I have is do you feel that because the CSA was founded on
      “states Rights” that in the end politics clouded military decisions. >>

      I believe that is *exactly* what happened. Consider Cleburne's
      recommendation to arm Negroes and slaves and the political decision that
      framed the government's response ("Thanks, Pat, but no thanks"). As late as
      the Battle of Mobile Bay (Aug '64) and the Battle of Blakeley (Apr '65),
      Colonel Henry Maury wanted to arm the free Negroes (referred to as Creoles)
      along the Gulf Coast to help in the defenses. The Secretary of State, Judah
      Benjamin, denied the request saying such actions would not be consistent with
      the view the government wished to present to the world.
      The actions of the states of Georgia (withholding troops) and North
      Carolina (withholding supplies) does, in my opinion, show the concept of
      State's Rights taken to it's natural conclusion. But, from my reading of the
      CS Constitution, the government's goal was to establish a "federal
      government" rather than a loose confederation of states. I think that would
      have been the end result eventually had the war taken a different turn of
      events. The CS government would have changed to reflect the realities of
      being a player on the world stage by somehow bringing the government
      philosophy more in line with that of the US. Remember, the US began as a
      confederation and soon learned the pitfalls of a laissez faire type system
      and I think the CS government would have also seen the necessity to fine tune
      their form of government over time.
      But....who knows.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.