Announcement

**MichaeltheGreat** · November 22, 2003, 22:35

As far as generals or admirals who would have supported such a dictatorship, only a loudmouthed and smallbrained few would voice it openly (ol' F. J. Hooker fit the bill) as it would be both treason and a violation of the officer's oath. IIRC, Hooker didn't start running his mouth on the subject until he had command, which would be after your time frame.

Stanton and a number of government officials and officers favored some form of martial law under the current administration, in at least some areas, but their are so many of them, and so many scopes (hardcore sympathizer areas, any sort of sympathy areas, the entire country) that it's hard to single any out, and all came a bit short of actual dictatorship.

Wilkes' squadron was sent out to the West Indies to do forward interdiction of blockade runners, but that was a fairly quiet area where he couldn't do much harm.

Wilkes had a lot of seniority and capability, but after the Trent incident (in which Wilkes ordered the boarding of a neutral vessel and took prisoner two civilian commisioners of the CSA government), and his two court-martials, plus his reputation for overharsh treatment of his crews, the Navy wanted someplace where Wilkes could do useful work, but not create more trouble than he was worth. The West Indies was it.

**Zkribbler** · November 23, 2003, 00:23

MtG, is there anything you don't know?

**Dis** · November 23, 2003, 03:08

he doesn't know the BFPL curves of 2A reactor on the USS Enterprise

**MichaeltheGreat** · November 23, 2003, 03:10

Originally posted by Zkribbler
MtG, is there anything you don't know?

Lots, but the War of Yankee Aggression is one of my specialties.

**MrFun** · November 23, 2003, 03:15

You mean the War of Southern Stupidity??

**Dis** · November 23, 2003, 03:22

I have to disagree with Yankee aggression. We were provoked.

**Mr. Harley** · November 23, 2003, 04:32

Actually, I believe Secretary Seward attempted to organize a coup and depose Lincoln, but Lincoln very cleverly defused the attempt. I'd have to be at home and check my books, sometimes I transpose names.

Major General Hooker:

General: I have placed you at the head of the Army of the Potomac. Of course I have done this upon what appears to me to be sufficient reasons, and yet I think it best for you to know that there are some things in regard to which I am not quite satisfied with you. I believe you to be a brave and skillful soldier, which, of course, I like. I also believe you do not mix politics with your profession, in which you are right. You have confidence in yourself, which is a valuable, if not an indispensable, quality. You are ambitious, which, within reasonable bounds, does good rather than harm; but I think that during General Burnside's command of the army you have taken counsel of your ambition, and thwarted him as much as you could, in which you did a great wrong to the country and to a most meritorious and honorable brother officer. I have heard, in such a way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the Army and the Government needed a dictator. Of course, it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain successes can set up dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship. The Government will support you to the utmost of its ability, which is neither more nor less than it has done and will do for all commanders. I much fear that the spirit which you have aided to infuse into the army, of criticizing their commander and withholding confidence from him, will now turn upon you. I shall assist you as far as I can to put it down. Neither you nor Napoleon, if he were alive again, could get any good out of an army while such a spirit prevails in it.

And now beware of rashness. Beware of rashness, but with energy and sleepless vigilance go forward and give us victories.

Yours, very truly,

A. Lincoln

War of Northern Agression? Our founding fathers specifically authorized the federal government to put down reballions in the constitution. Plus, this opinion was not just Lincoln's, a very famous southerner actually was the first one to threaten disunionists, this funny guy named Andrew Jackson. Finally, there are some excellent scholarly treatises looking at the line of authority, and the fact that many of the state governments were more or less created/organized/pushed? by the Continental Congress, creating a line of authority to the federal governent, not the states (I prefer sovereignty of the people, but the founders didn't, which is why the US is a Republic).

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/aj7/about/bio/jack19.htm

On December 11, 1832, Jackson published a proclamation giving strong constitutional arguments, written by the Secretary of State Livingston, "... I consider then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed".

It ended in a strong plea and threat which was mostly pure Jackson: "Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent [the execution of the laws] deceived you; they could not have been deceived themselves... Their object is disunion. But be not deceived by names. Disunion by armed force is treason. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences; on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment. On your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the Government of your country... I adjure you ... to retrace your steps."

Hooker at first treasured the letter, and showed it to multiple individuals, saying it was written like a father to a son. As many historians have observed, he obviously "didn't get it"

.

As I've noted before in other posts, the Civil War was a war about power (like most wars, funny thing that). Most of the planters in the South had a wealthy oligarchy that disenfranchised poor voters. Most of the Southern states did not have a true popular vote to succede, and in fact their legislatures were so organized as to make certain that the majority poor upland voters were underrepresented.

The North also had problems with this, however, they didn't try to succede. Remember, troops for South Carolina fired the first shots of agression. The firebrands in that state, who helped start the crisis under Jackson, and then pushed it to rebellion in 1860, could have chosen the peaceful route, and they probably would have won!

Before any revisionist historians try to paint the South Carolina firebrands as the noble "states rights" types, remember that these same firebrands were planning to re-establish the slave trade. They had already run slave ships to Africa, and had run mulitiple trips. The Civil War had nothing, and everything, to do with slavery. These individuals had every intention of restarting the brutal slave trade where free people were forced into bondage with hideous deaths in cramped, fetid ships. It was only the need for British and French recognition that caused the Confederacy to take the "enlightened" view against slavery that they did (multiple scholerly workups on that, too).

Lincoln was going to try to collect duties on the South from ships at sea, if a shooting war did not start. It was an attempt doomed to failure. It would have taken several years, but with Kentucky refusing US troops passage, Maryland unpacified (no war, no martial law) and Missouri as well as Kansas vicous chaotic "War to the Knife" I can see the Confederacy gaining it's independence. I think I agree with the poster "the war of southern stupidity".

**Dom Pedro II** · November 23, 2003, 05:34

The South Carolinians fired on Fort Sumter because they were left with little alternative. The Confederates knew damn well it'd be better to avoid a war, but how is one supposed to be recognized as an independent country, if another nation still has forts in your borders?

Fort Sumter was one of several games of chicken the North and South were playing. Lincoln wanted a war because the Southerners had already made it clear that they were not going to come to the negotiating table. War was going to be the only way to solve the problem. Of course, if he had started it, he might not have only lost the states he did, he might have lost Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland along with them... so the solution was to keep reinforcing the bases the North still currently possessed.

What could the Southerners do? Sit and ignore the forts still in their territory? Allow one of their main ports to have an enemy base right smack dab in the middle of it? They HAD to act... both did.

And one could make the same argument in the North as in the South with regards to democracy. During the war, strong-arm Republican tactics were used in many areas including vicious reprisals to anyone who voted Democrat thereby scaring the Democratic voters away. And in Indiana, when the legislature in 1862 was going to be predominately Democrat, their governor suspended the legislature and ruled by decree till the end of the war...

And while certainly there were those Southerners who were looking to reestablish the slave trade, or more conservatively to perserve the institution of slavery, or out for just their own personal ambition, that was not the case for many of them... Many of the men who fought for the South had no such intentions. Of course, many of these same people would rather have avoided secession altogether.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't go so far as to call it the War of Northern Aggression... but there was dirt on both sides, blood on both hands.

EDIT:

Thanks for the info, MtG

Anyway, perhaps I can squeeze a bit more info out if I explain what the story's about...

The story is basically a "What If?" story in which we suppose that Jackson had been fully alert on June 30th at the Battle of Glendale and had crossed the White Oak Swamp against Franklin's Corps. Without anyone in command, in the middle of the Virginia swamps, with only one choked road full of wagons as a means of escape, 40,000 men of the Union Army would easily have collapsed in the face of one of the Confederate's rarest of all advantage: superior numbers.

The loss of 40,000 would have halved the Army of the Potomac. It also would have been the worst Union defeat yet seen. There is no way McClellan's army would have risked staying where they were now, and they would have been moved out. McClellan meanwhile would surely have been fired if not put in jail for dereliction of duty.

With Richmond secure, Jackson would be sent out to stop Pope moving in against Gordonsville, a critical rail junction (which he was) in mid-July. What has also changed is that with Richmond safe, the rest of the Army of Northern Virginia would have been right behind him. In that case, they would have been able to carry out the assault planned on Pope's army for August 17th. The battle would have been an absolute disaster. Lee's forces would have splashed across the river 50,000 strong moving against Pope's 45,000 while Stuart's cavalry would have moved north and destroyed the bridge over the Rappahannock cutting off the only retreat for the Union troops. Nevermind the disastrous defeat of Second Manassas in the real timeline... this would've been effectively another Glendale. Imagine it! The Union having lost nearly eighty thousand men in two months?!

The way to the North would have been paved. There would be no Antietam. No disastrous retreat for Lee. They could march straight through Maryland and into Pennsylvania. Once there, Jed Hotchkiss, who had traveled extensively through the Pennsylvania countryside, comes up with a plan to force the North to its knees: the coal mines. 3/4 of all the anthracite coal produced in America came from those few counties in Pennsylvania. If the supply of coal was interrupted, it would force the North to rely on the other places that produced the coal they needed. The Union war machine would have come streeching to a halt. And much of this information was acquired from a book on the subject of Lee's plans for invasion of the North. This was a real possibility. The disasters in Virginia compel the War Department to call for reinforcements from the West, and the severing of the B&O disrupts the supply lines in the West, and as a result, Bragg actually manages to beat Buell to Louisville, Kentucky.

The Northern newspapers are screaming for peace, the elections are going to be soon, and France and Britain have effectively decided that the Confederacy has more than proved itself. Lincoln calls his Cabinet, and as there are no solutions offered, he decides that there is no choice but to call a truce.

As he does so, there are rumblings among the 40-50,000 troops still in Washington holding back a Confederate invasion of the city. The message is clear: If Lincoln sues for peace, there will be a revolution. He really has no choice though, and so he does, but only once he knows that he and his people and family can be safely gotten out of the city. He issues the order for a truce and promptly resigns as a means to stop the coup. It doesn't. Bloodlessly, McClellan is sprung from jail, and backed by Hooker he takes the White House.

Lincoln and his people flee and get to safety. Congress, meanwhile, is not so lucky. The following day, an emergency meeting is called, and the situation is explained. The army gives the Congress two choices, comply or be removed. Many of the Senators and Representatives opt for prison rather than be dictated to by the army including John Sherman (William T. Sherman's brother).

Meanwhile, while returning home from Pennsylvania, Lee gets the message that Lincoln has been overthrown. He orders the army to stop. If this means renewed hostilities, he's not sacrificing his advantage. In the West, the generals there receive the news of the coup. Grant decides that there is no way he can in good conscience support this. It was hard enough for him to decide to take up arms against old friends. This was just too far. Buell, on the other hand, jealous of Lincoln's top general Halleck, who had been given promotions above him in spite of Buell being the more competent man, and also as a friend of McClellan's, Buell agrees to support McClellan.

In the Navy, Charles Wilkes decides to side with McClellan since otherwise he was going to be removed.

If the situation was bad before, it has no gotten substantially worse. A new government is organized under Hamlin in Cleveland, but there's no way to collect taxes without a Congress, and the policy is still that the truce with the CSA stands. Neither government has complete legitimacy on its side. Hamlin is ruling as a governor-by-decree through legitimate channels, and McClellan is ruling as the President through illegitimate channels. Who to follow? For the western states, the choice is pretty clear, and the conventions determine that they will NOT follow McClellan. Calls for troops are ordered, and Grant is placed in command of a large coalition army being assembled in the West, it's mission to liberate Washington. Grant gets a telegram from Lee a few days later saying: Give me 40,000 men, and I will deliver the capital.

As far as Britain and France are concerned, they're still doing business with the old government, and recognition goes through as expected. The McClellan government responds by declaring war on Britain and France in retaliation. It is Thomas H. Stevens and his Monitor that fire the first shots on a British merchant vessel. While the British do not decide to declare war on the USA, an order is issued saying that any ship flying the US flag will be considered an enemy ship until proven otherwise.

And that's about as far as I am because I need more info

.

**Mr. Harley** · November 23, 2003, 06:33

Agree completely about strong-arm Republican tactics - during the war. You'll find in my other posts that I use Lincoln as my primary example of an American President who was a threat to liberty, and I call him a bastard. He was a very effective political bastard.

Why did the South Caroline firebrands HAVE to fire on Fort Sumpter? That is a historical load of crud that they had to that it has now become accepted fact. Many South Carolinians and other southerners wanted to play the waiting game with Lincoln, they were pretty sure they could win. They would drag things out and rely on the border states and public opinion. The fort could be cut off any time the South wanted to, and even if it was supplied, Lincoln would lose the border South if the Union opened fire. The calmer heads knew it, and were willing to sit on the side of the road while Lincoln made a high speed wreck - they didn't want to play chicken.

But the Firebrands knew those Yankees were cowards, hated the abolitionists, and were certain the righteousness of their cause would assure their victory. Read their corresponcence, it's very illuminating. They did play chicken with Lincoln, doing exactly what he wanted. Because of the positions they occupied in South Carolina, they drug the rest of the south with them. Lincoln wanted the car wreck, Lincoln would do ANYTHING to preserve the union. He stated that in his inaugural address, and his actions thoughout the war were totally focused in that direction. Reread his letter to Hooker. He subverted the constitution, the political process, elections, martial law, and would risk political dictatorship! Jefferson Davis admitted he had prickly pride, and some of his conflicts with generals helped weaken the confederacy. Lincoln said he would hold a general's horse (I cannot remember which one) is he would give him victory. Ego versus a cold, calculating focus. History tells you which one was victorious. Lincoln was a great man, but like most great men, I wouldn't trust him farther than I could throw and M1 Abrams.

**MichaeltheGreat** · November 23, 2003, 11:48

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
War of Northern Agression? Our founding fathers specifically authorized the federal government to put down reballions in the constitution.

Read the language very carefully. There was no rebellion (i.e. an attempt to replace the United States government, or that of any state, by force). Nor did any state governments apply for aid in putting down insurrections against state authority.

Sovereign states left a union of sovereign states, which they voluntarily formed, in some cases, or joined, in others.

**MichaeltheGreat** · November 23, 2003, 11:54

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
The South Carolinians fired on Fort Sumter because they were left with little alternative. The Confederates knew damn well it'd be better to avoid a war, but how is one supposed to be recognized as an independent country, if another nation still has forts in your borders?

There were two additional issues - the "resupply" mission to Fort Sumter was combined with a far less publicized reinforcement mission to Fort Pickens, part of the complex of forts (including Fort Barrancas) offshore of St. Petersburg, Florida, so Lincoln's "resupply" expedition in fact carried a formidible force for the time.

The second issue was that while this was being prepared, the Lincoln administration was lying and playing games back-channel with representatives of the CSA government, claiming to be willing to negotiate Fort Sumter, and possibly other Federal forts in the other six states of the CSA. Once the actual plans of the Sumter-Pickens expedition were known, the CSA government and state of South Carolina felt that the motives and public claims of the Lincoln administration could not be trusted.

**Dom Pedro II** · November 23, 2003, 13:49

MtG:
In fact, Texas even joined the USA with the stipulation that it could withdraw when it pleased.

shawnmmcc: I'm not denying the southern ego in any way, shape, or form. They certainly did say a lot of sshhh-stuff then that was pretty ridiculous, and have said a lot since the war that follows the same line.

Personally, I think it would've been better for the Northerners to agree to let the South go, but it's not for any love of the South that I say that....

**Dr Strangelove** · November 23, 2003, 14:40

The forts were property of the United States, bought and paid for. Even the Confederacy, or perhaps especially the Confederacy, would have loathed the uncompensated seizure of someone's property. In fact Lincoln did attempt to use the forts as bargaining chits, specifically he made an offering to the governor of Virginia that he would give Fort Sumter to South Carolina if Virginia promised to stay in the union. The governor never answered this offer, even after the Virginia legisalature had repeatedly voted against joining the Confederacy. The governor of Virginia at that time was in favor of secession. One wonders whether he saw in this offer an opportunity to tip the balance in his own state, and might have passed this information on down the lne to militants in South Carolina hoping that they would act on it.

**Dom Pedro II** · November 23, 2003, 14:47

Dr. Strangelove: Interesting. I had never heard about that before.

Read the language very carefully. There was no rebellion (i.e. an attempt to replace the United States government, or that of any state, by force). Nor did any state governments apply for aid in putting down insurrections against state authority.

Sovereign states left a union of sovereign states, which they voluntarily formed, in some cases, or joined, in others.

Of course, according to the federal government at the time the Southern states didn't secede because they couldn't secede. There was no Confederate States of America, just an uprising as far as they said.

It is interesting though that Lincoln had to order the blockade of a country that never existed. A number of Congressmen and advisors warned him that he was effectively recognizing by doing this. That if it were just an uprising, that he should close the ports instead.

It is also interesting that states that never left the Union had to be readmitted to it during Reconstruction.

I mean, if we want to argue inconsistencies or hypocritical tactics, we'd be here for a looong time.

Announcement

Any Civil War buffs want to help a man out?

Any Civil War buffs want to help a man out?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment