Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Let's say you're redoing the Civil War and you get to play one of two characters: Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis.
Would it actually be easy to win the war playing as Jefferson Davis?
Obviously, the South would never have been able to conquer the North. The North had immense economic, technological, naval, and manpower advantages. But they didn't need to. They just need to impose enough of a cost on the North that the North would come to a settlement. This doesn't appear that far-fetched. The re-election of Abraham Lincoln was no sure thing in 1864. Had the war not turned decisively in favor of the Union, its possible that McClellan could have won. In the end, he still captured 45% of the votes and won three states (NJ, DE, KY). If McClellan prosecuted the war as President like he did as a General, its likely the South could have held out for a long time. Situations like the starvation of Union prisoners in Andersonville, and the sheer awfulness of the conflict would have likely have proven intolerable without a sure path to victory.
So what could the South have done?
Fabian tactics. They should have simply refused to give battle whenever possible, and harassed Union communications. Johnston did just that as he retreated in the face of Sherman's army. But then he was replaced by the Confederate government because they preferred someone who wanted to fight. Then Sherman took Atlanta.
Lee's incursion into Pennsylvania was a fatal mistake that did more to weaken the Confederate cause than anything. He may have been a good tactician but this strategic blunder is unforgivable.
But the real weak point here is Jefferson Davis. He often involved himself in military decisions and wanted commanders who took an aggressive posture. While appropriate for a stronger force, this is entirely inappropriate for a weaker one. Confederate doctrine should have been preservation of precious manpower, avoiding giving battle, never fighting when not intrenched etc... That last part is also key since the Civil War showed some signs of a proto-WWI type environment.
In any case, in hindsight, the war seems eminently winnable for the South. Which character would you play: Lincoln or Davis?
I think the more interesting question is: the North won the war and you play as Andrew Johnson. What do you do so that 130 years later people no longer identify with the cause of the South?
Do people really identify with the cause of the South now? The Confederacy fought for a very specific slave based political economy. That economy was destroyed by the war and never came back. All political fights in the US are within the political-economic universe created by the victorious Union.
I consider modern people who use Confederate imagery as similar to Ukrainians who dress up like the Nazis; they are appropriating the dress and iconography of a previous movement despite not advocating for that goals of that previous movement.
I don't know for sure. Until 2015 the creed of the "Children of the Confederacy of the United Daughters of the Confederacy" stated that the war was not fought to sustain slavery, which means you can identify with the CSA without advocating for slavery.
I think it’s important to disambiguate the cause of the CSA from the Redeemer and post war conservative Southern causes. The core telos of the CSA was the maintenance of slavery and planter dominance. All of its leadership agreed on that. Post war Southern conservatives from the Redeemers onward desired different things. There is overlap, such as both wanting to limit Yankee power more or less and support for white supremacy until the 60s, but they are different political projects.
Groups like Daughters of the Confederacy use the history of the CSA for their own purposes, but they don’t share the same ends. The CSA response to the question of “Was the US Civil War about slavery?” Is “YesChad. Slavery needs to protected.”
The confederacy fought because they believed the planter class was owed a veto right over federal policy, and they had pre-abolitionist dust ups over this regularly. They seceded after losing control of the senate and then the presidency in quick succession, not in response to any specific policies.
In the 1860’s, this was specifically manifested as slavery. But they’d previously gotten into it with pro-slavery presidents. The non-slavery parts of the CSA constitution are also revealing- all about Plutocracy and the natural rights of large landholders to govern.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link