Thoughts

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/150-years-of-misunderstanding-the-civil-war/277022/

My friend Chris posted this on my fb page, so I figured I would comment, being a Civil War nerd...

First, I don't buy the idea that we didn't need a war to destroy slavery.  For one thing, the Supreme Court said slavery was perfectly legal and acceptable, so...the normal legislature measures were dead.  (Thankfully, this doesn't happen now.  :P)  Two, as the article notes, slavery was profitable and was hemmed in only by geography and -- shamefully -- white supremacy, which kept ALL blacks out of most of the US.  Three, slavery was -- as noted by Lincoln and others -- intertwined with the nation; people relied on it to define blacks, labor policy, tariff and agricultural questions, etc...  It could NOT be separated.  Finally...I think a comparison with WWI and WWII is in order.  If we remember, one impetus of German rearmament/Hitler was the notion that Germany didn't lost WWI in that it was beaten, but that its people -- the Jews, for instance -- stabbed them in the back.  No one wanted WWIII, so hence the decision was made to thoroughly and totally defeat Nazi Germany.  I think only by defeating the South in battle -- a long and painful process -- could the nation fully cleanse itself of slavery.

The notion that we "lost" the war afterwards is correct, but...that was a failure of will by all people; if you will, it was Democratic intransigence that wore them down and led to the creation of two separate but unequal Americas.  If anything, the assassination of Lincoln -- and the elevation of white supremacist Johnson -- doomed civil rights.  While progress was made under Grant, the fact of the matter was too much time was lost in the interim and such groups as the KKK formed.  Had the Federal Goverment acted forcefully from the beginning...well, things would have been different.  I guess I lean on the side that Lincoln had, during the war, learned to deal (or handle) the Radicals, and while things would not have been smooth, it would have been far smoother than the conflict with Johnson.  During the war, of course, such men as Stevens had the same aims, even if their motivations were different, but they carried the water for Lincoln, politically, during the conflict.
I've also been a little skeptical of the notion that a Northern loss at Gettysburg would have ended the war.  For one thing, even if the Army of the Potomac breaks on July 2, I think the worst would have been a Chickamauga scenario; half of the army would have fell on DC, while the rest would have hung on until nightfall on the strong position on the right.  The VI Corps -- ably led -- would have been hurried up, as would have been the Cavalry Corps.  Some Union troops broke on the right, but it was the shaken XI corps; the XII corps, the I corps remnants, and the II troops there held.  I suspect 50,000 rifles would have been available to Meade/whoever by July 4.  The army would have reformed in DC and sent back out to fight.  Reinforcements -- mainly militia, but also some of the 20K two-year men -- would have been summoned.  Other troops could have been called from other departments -- the forces at Norfolk, Burnside's command, etc.

Plus, Lee's army would have been in bad shape.  It suffered heavily, and would have gad 50,000 rifles as well.  In enemy territory.  No supply lines; still in danger of being cut off.  Yes, the army could have moved around and caused damage in central PA, but I find it HARD to believe a deeper penetration would have occurred; if anything, Lee would have moved on DC -- per his intention -- to deliver a peace proposal to Lincoln.

Which would have been rejected.  Let's face it; the South was in bad shape in 1863.  Vicksburg was surrendering, giving the North command of the river and rending the Confederacy in two...including access to the crucial foodstuffs of the Trans-Mississippi.  One suspects that the generous surrender terms offered by Grant would NOT have been allowed had the North been defeated at Gettysburg...  Also, if one looks at the efforts of the War Department to keep Grant's army at full strength during the siege -- stripping other departments of men to build up the army to encircle the city and beat off Johnson -- do you really think that they could NOT have found the men to confront Lee again?    More ominously for the South, the Vicksburg campaign also saw the first serious uses of black troops, which it could be argued were underutilized during the war.  Considering a slave population of 4 million, only 186,000 black troops were raised, and less than half -- about 35% if I recall -- were used in combat; most were in garrison and labor outfits that freed up white troops to fight.  Does one not think that had they needed them, the Union could NOT have enlisted more ex-slaves?  Ditto for the North's awful conscription policy, which netted only a few men...the screws could have been tightened.  Think of it:  the population increased during the war, even with war deaths and the inexoranble drift of settlers westward...immigration played a role, which also offered sources of troops, had they been needed.

And, let's NOT discuss economics; the South maintained field armies for as long as it did by stripping the land of everything else -- literally and figuratively; the system was horribly strained in 1863, as the South had minimal trade (blockade running never could bring in enough of anything) and was falling apart in the interior...the South could never feed itself, not because of production, but because it could not transport food from spot A to spot B.  The railroads were coming apart, and could not be replaced; ditto for equipment, as all industrial production was put to weapons and ammo.  The South had to rely on horsepower, and as war went on, that dropped off as well...Much of the war was fought on its borders, and any rampaging Federal column (or Confederate impressment officers) caused significant dislocations.  Let's not forget the rampant inflation of the Confederacy...which happened in good times and bad, as the only policy the government had was to print money and hope for the best.  As those of us who are tards know, wages never keep up with inflation, which was even worse for a nation of small farmsteads (which was what the Confederacy was) where the main breadwinner was -- as often as not -- not around to help on the farm.  The North -- with a larger urban core -- had some relief for the female, in the form of factories and piecework, to say nothing of the farm itself, which often had modern, labor-saving equipment (which, thanx to its superior banking and credit system, could be purchased) that women could use.

I suspect most of this is simply a lefty notion that ALL war is bad, and thus this one -- despite its positives -- has to bad, too.  I think it is dumb, but...