Four Civil War Battles that had the greatest impact on the war?

6,183 Views | 56 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Rabid Cougar
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jabin said:

Quote:

Why not just have a peaceful divorce?
I was taught that that was an issue (i.e., secession) that the framers were very aware of and punted on because they had no good answer - or at least any answer would not have been an obstacle to ratification.


They didn't really punt. The issue came up in New York and Hamilton and Madison were quite explicit that they believed joining the Union was irrevocable once done. The antifederalists believed that to be the case as well, which is why they pushed so hard against the Constitution. Madison later was quite open during the Nullification Crisis that he did not believe a state had a right to secede.
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If only they had named it The Constitution for the Perpetual Union of the States.
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

BQ78 said:

Remember Lee and Meade didn't want the battle at Gettysburg but when the first day went so well for the Confederates, Lee felt compelled to keep fighting.

As for Meade, if he had his way he would have fought a defensive battle on Pipe Creek defending Washington. But that would have played right into Lee's plan to destroy anthracite coal mines north of Harrisburg. It is also why Lee blew off Longstreet's suggestion on the second day to go around the Union left. Washington was not his goal, Pennsylvania mines were.
And England had contemplated ending the war on a humanitarian basis as well. That was being discussed, how seriously I'm not certain.


There was zero popular support in Britain beyond the upper class for the Confederacy. They couldn't have intervened and their current government survive. The British government was more interested in harming the United States than any humanitarian concerns.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And making money!
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

If only they had named it The Constitution for the Perpetual Union of the States.


It was already understood at the time as a perpetual union and the Constitution was a much stronger central power than the Confederation. They saw ratification as the place for the states to have their say. The idea that secession was fine, but they then left the Constitution COMPLETELY silent on such an extremely important and disruptive topic while going into granular detail for adding states seems pretty foolish.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BQ78 said:

And making money!


That, too.
KingofHazor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

Jabin said:

Quote:

Why not just have a peaceful divorce?
I was taught that that was an issue (i.e., secession) that the framers were very aware of and punted on because they had no good answer - or at least any answer would not have been an obstacle to ratification.


They didn't really punt. The issue came up in New York and Hamilton and Madison were quite explicit that they believed joining the Union was irrevocable once done. The antifederalists believed that to be the case as well, which is why they pushed so hard against the Constitution. Madison later was quite open during the Nullification Crisis that he did not believe a state had a right to secede.
So obviously they made that explicit in the Constitution itself, correct?
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:


He also had suggested that Congress authorize a bill for enslavers to be paid $400 per slave to avoid war and save money in the end. It was ignored obviously.
$400 ??????


New York Times Archives.

Aug. 22, 1863

-- Slaves command a higher price in Kentucky, taking gold as the standard of value, than in any other of the Southern States. In Missouri they are sold at from forty dollars to four hundred, according to age, quality, and especially according to place. In Tennessee they cannot be said to be sold at all. In Maryland the negroes upon an estate were lately sold, and fetched an average price of $18 a head. In the farther States of the Southern Confederacy we frequently see reports of negro sales, and we occasionally see boasts from rebel newspapers as to the high prices the slaves bring, notwithstanding the war and the collapse of Southern industry. We notice in the Savannah Republican of the 5th, a report of a negro sale in that city, at which, we are told, high prices prevailed, and at which two girls of 18 years of age were sold for about $2,500 apiece, two matured boys for about the same price, a man of 45 for $1,850, and at woman of 23, with her child of 5, for $3,950. Twenty-five hundred dollars, then, may be taken as the standard price of first-class slaves in the Confederacy; but when it is remembered that this is in Confederate money, which is worth less than one-twelfth its face in gold, it will be seen that the real price, by this standard, is only about $200. In Kentucky, on the other hand, though there is but little buying or selling of slave stock going on, we understand that negroes are still held at from seven to twelve hundred dollars apiece.
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I didn't say it was a good plan but I believe a version of it passed the Senate, I believe over Democratic opposition.

There was an attempt at freeing the slaves in Delaware this way.
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
OldArmy71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Excellent discussion. Very informative and enjoyable. I appreciate all the contributions.
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

I didn't say it was a good plan but I believe a version of it passed the Senate, I believe over Democratic opposition.

There was an attempt at freeing the slaves in Delaware this way.
For sure. It made me curious as to the going rate of a slave during that time. I knew their value varied by gender, age and trade skills. Kinda along the line of modern day "gun buy backs".
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
1. Gettysburg
2. Vicksburg
3. Atlanta
4. Third Winchester/Cedar Creek
BigJim49 AustinNowDallas
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jabin said:

Another question for you learned Civil War buffs.

The strategic import of the North capturing Vicksburg is traditionally stated as that it split the Confederacy in half. But did it?

First, it wasn't literally "half". Only LA, AR & TX were to the west of the Mississippi.

And how much did LA, AR & TX really contribute to the Southern war effort?

Isn't the real significance of Vicksburg that it gave the North control of the Mississippi and, in effect, the port of New Orleans? Now the North could use the Mississippi to get crops and goods to and from the Northwest and further deprived the South of the use of the Mississippi for the same purpose for the southern states to its east.
Ask my two GGpaws Confederates! No yankees took any part of Texas!
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
El Paso and Brazos Island were occupied at the end of the war. No offense, but Texas itself wasn't really worth a ton of effort to occupy, especially once the Mississippi and New Orleans were closed and the blockade was working.
BillYeoman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In regards to Texas, I heard one of the reasons the Union entered Texas was to message France to stay out of the war. And shore up support/supplies to Benito Juarez. Perhaps I am wrong and y'all can clear that up for me.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't discount the importance of Texas in the war even after Vicksburg. The Federals attempted to invade Texas at various time for three reasons:

  • Shutdown the Texas ports as sources of foreign commerce
  • To have a presence on the border to back up rhetoric about violations of the Monroe Doctrine in Mexico
  • To seize east Texas cotton for northeastern mills, that were virtually closed due to a lack of their prime material (pretty much the whole point of the Red River Campaign).

BigJim49 AustinNowDallas
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jabin said:

Another question for you learned Civil War buffs.

The strategic import of the North capturing Vicksburg is traditionally stated as that it split the Confederacy in half. But did it?

First, it wasn't literally "half". Only LA, AR & TX were to the west of the Mississippi.

And how much did LA, AR & TX really contribute to the Southern war effort?

Isn't the real significance of Vicksburg that it gave the North control of the Mississippi and, in effect, the port of New Orleans? Now the North could use the Mississippi to get crops and goods to and from the Northwest and further deprived the South of the use of the Mississippi for the same purpose for the southern states to its east.
There's been probably over a thousand books about Texas contributions to the South!

You should read at least ONE ! My 2 GGfathers from Bastrop served 4 years -most across the South

fighting yankees. Not one yankee won a part of Texas!
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Again, Brazos Island and El Paso were captured by the Union and held to the end of the war. Yes, Texas supplies and manpower was important to the Confederacy. Occupying Texas itself was not a priority for the Union and they never made a significant, sustained effort to do so. Even after losing Galveston, they chose to strengthen the blockade rather than make another effort to close the port. It just wasn't worth the resources with the Mississippi closed and the rest of the Gulf under strong Union naval control.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Depends on the definition of significant. Banks spent a better part of a year (last half of '63 and first half of '64) trying to get a toe hold in Texas, first at Sabine Pass with a corps to counter the French in Mexico and then two corps up the Red River to get to east Texas cotton. Not to mention lesser attempts at Matagorda and Port Lavaca during the same time period. Confederates running cotton through Matamoras and Bagdad was why the last land battle of the war was in Texas.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The ultimate goal of the Red River Campaign was Shreveport. Occupying eastern Texas was a secondary goal. Earlier in 1863 Banks did capture Brownsville but the Union left it after a few months because they had largely achieved their objectives and fell back to Brazos Island. Despite not capturing Galveston, Lincoln was happy with the results of Banks' work in Texas. It should be said that the Red River Campaign was Halleck's last hurrah. Grant had zero interest in pursuing it because his focus was on the much more strategically vital port of Mobile. Again, I'm not saying Texas wasn't important, but occupying the state wasn't close to a top priority.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And why was Shreveport important? It was a regional market and had a small naval yard but the purpose was to get Red River cotton with the bigger goal of east Texas cotton. Occupation of all of Texas was never a goal of the Federals but neutralization and being able to put force behind Monroe Doctrine certainly was.
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Indianola was occupied twice. October of 1983 and November of 1863. One Federal unit, the 69th Indiana Inf. lost 23 plus men when they drowned when their pontoon barge transporting them to Matagorda Island was upset by large waves and incoming tide in March of 1864. They were preparing to be a part of a Federal invasion into the interior of Texas with Tyler being their objective. This was apparently to be in support of Bank's Red River Campaign. The "invasion" never took place and the 69th was sent back to Louisiana.
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.