Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by Hanny » 14 Dec 2018 21:01

South wrote:
14 Dec 2018 18:15

See Muzzey, Vol. II.p.47, note.

Heres the book used, onlinde version, it has a search function, so yes it covers the sale of Alaska, but no, neither of the quotes are in it, nor are any of the $ amounts used in the book or any such thing like the quotes.
https://archive.org/details/muzzeysamer ... h/page/500
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2801
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by Takao » 14 Dec 2018 21:39

As to the supposed "cost" of Alaska, all reference in the several books that I have seen it mentioned all trace back to "The Letters of Franklin K. Lane, Personal and Political" by Franklin K. Lane, edited by Anne Wintermute Lane and Louise Herrick Wall. published in 1922. It is from a memo that was found in his files dated December 29, 1911, and concerns a conversation he had with Charles Glover.
Here is the link to the book passage: https://books.google.com/books?id=8mwoA ... ka&f=false

As the source for the two warrants. Now, there is what would be called "hearsay" , as Mr. Glover relates that he learned from a Senator Dawes about the secret agreement for the purchase of Alaska and payment for the Russian fleet.
It would appear that Mr. Glover confused the numbers - Given that Russia had already refused a US offer of $5million for Alaska.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by Hanny » 14 Dec 2018 22:05

Lincoln's Indispensable Man https://www.amazon.co.uk/Seward-Lincoln ... 1439121184

When Stoeckl at last returned to his post in Washington, he met with Seward, probably on March 11. After preliminary pleasantries, Stoeckl alluded to the Washington fishing petition and to other American efforts to obtain rights in the Russian territory, and said that Russia would never grant such rights. As Stoeckl hoped, Seward then raised the question of whether Russia would be prepared to sell the territory. As Seward hoped, Stoeckl responded that the Russian government had now authorized him to negotiate the terms of a sale. Seward said that before they started negotiations, he would need to speak with Johnson.

At a second meeting a few days later, Seward told Stoeckl that although the president was “not inclined to the transaction,” he would allow the secretary to negotiate terms. Seward would still need to confer with the cabinet, and Stoeckl offered to confer in parallel with key senators and representatives. Seward instantly objected; as Stoeckl reported the conversation, he insisted that “this negotiation must be conducted in the greatest secrecy. Let us first see if we can agree. It will be time then to consult with Congress.” Seward was surely right to prevent Stoeckl from talking with senators, for such discussions would have led to press reports, which would have led to criticism even before Seward and Stoeckl agreed on terms. As to price, Seward first mentioned $5 million, but before Stoeckl even reacted, he added that “we might even go to $5,500,000, but no more.” Stoeckl may have countered with $7 million; he at least indicated that he was not prepared to accept Seward’s price.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 1787
Joined: 03 Sep 2003 18:15
Location: Canada

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by maltesefalcon » 15 Dec 2018 01:47

South wrote:
14 Dec 2018 08:09
Good morning Maltesefalcon,

Concur with above.

Must, however, ask to add something maybe even more important than the shortages of AA&E - arms, ammunition and equipment.

"They", the newly formed CSA, had an inferior, if not obsolete, form of government: a confederacy. From running wars to running welfare programs, a central government was best. It still is. The locals know best about the local situation, whether it's enemy forces approaching the tavern or aid to unwed teenage mothers not in the labor market. The locals cannot calibrate their situation to the big picture.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA
We are on the same page here. The South had a paradoxical problem. At least in part, 11 states had seceded from the Union as they felt state's rights superseded Federalism. But they could not run an efficient (war) economy, if each state fended only for itself; and refused to buy into their own version of federalism to share both resources and responsibility. It became worse as Federal troops began to virtually overrun some states, who then had less inclination to stay the course.

A Navy was of vital importance and could only be run (and paid for) on some type of central or federal level. Likewise a national rail system.

But just to be clear the US Army only had about 16,000 officers and men in 1861. The bulk of Northern troops were still recruited, commanded and paid for at the state level.It was the formation of a (Northern) national tax base that allowed the nucleus of what would eventually emerge as the military/industrial complex.

The south lost in other ways. Since most taxes were paid at the state level, even "loyal" property owners were screwed at war's end. The 11 states that had collected those same taxes, had obviously not given Uncle Sam its share, and the government wanted them paid again.

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by South » 15 Dec 2018 05:59

Good morning Hanny and Takao,

Good info.......

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

"Bleak are our coasts with the blasts of December,
Thrilling and warm are our hearts that remember
who was our friend when the world was our foe."

Oliver Wendell Holmes - greeting the Russian Grand Duke Alexis on his visit to the U.S. in 1871

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by South » 15 Dec 2018 06:37

Good morning Maltesefalcon,

True, the US Army in 1861 was small. However, expansion for war mobilization was realistic.

General George Washington's army had 12 of his generals with combat experience from the French and Indian War. Washington had a pool of ~ 200,000 old and poorly trained militia members......but the machinery to raise an army was not a new matter for Lincoln and his Cabinet.

Lincoln was sophisticated and very knowledgeable in working the political machinery. One commentator had said - I don't have references for the commentator - that Lincoln assumed the control and direction of the US Army as early as 3 May 1861 when he assumed when he called not for militia but rather for volunteers. Thus, the new soldiers would be subject to the rules and regulation of the Army and not the Governors (although Governors would continue to commission officers). President Lincoln thus was Commander of the US Army relying on the Militia Act of 28 February 1795.

The mobilization worked and at the end...Lincoln was not in life...the US had the world's most powerful land force.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by South » 15 Dec 2018 07:47

Good morning Uncle Bob,

Wasn't recent but did take leave of my senses circa between when William Colby accidentally drowned off Rockpoint, Maryland and when Vince Foster passed away at Fort Marcy Park, Virginia.

Actually, my historical roots are New York City - but got down here as fast as I could. Grew up in NYC less 2 non-consecutive years.

Centralized government is now the "in-thing" to use an old term. "The South" is now a land of economic immigrants from the north and midwest. Add this are'a's component of the relatively recent 40 million foreign immigrants and states' rights and federalism are vestiges of an earlier era. Virginia is governed......actually the better word is "ruled"...... from Fairfax County. Richmond is a - to quote something - "a vestige of an earlier era".

As an aside, with an oblique link to a recent AHF discussion in re WWII Hungarian generals; At one time NYC was, well......think of the Peppermint Lounge and a stroll in Central Park......I studied international relations taught by the WWII's Hungarian Army Chief of Staff - and Chief of State for 6 months. Forgot name but I have a file w/ bio and pictures of him. He was a professor in NYC. The place was quality. Stuff changes. Later, after I left, NYC had professors teaching about ice people and sun people.

Another big aspect re centralized government......am going to tie this para into the Civil War theme we're discussing here at this thread......When Teng Hsiao-Ping's China entered the US market and added 50% more capacity, small governmental entities, like Port Authorities, could not compete. The term we use related to all this is "STCs" - State Trading Companies. To compete requires large scales of everything - especially $$$. The old farmhouse next to the Chesapeake Bay left ages ago - except for the subsidized ones.


.......

Good morning Hanny,

Hope the healing process re wrist and the pending injuries are in the healing stage. The snow of Isle of Wight and the flooding arriving here in a few hours........going on for decades/centuries. Yes, indeed, the aging process does wonders for a clear focus on reality.

Stay warm - and DON'T shovel the snow ! The statistics on heart attacks are clear enough.

......


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by Hanny » 15 Dec 2018 11:47

South wrote:
15 Dec 2018 07:47

Good morning Hanny,

Hope the healing process re wrist and the pending injuries are in the healing stage. The snow of Isle of Wight and the flooding arriving here in a few hours........going on for decades/centuries. Yes, indeed, the aging process does wonders for a clear focus on reality.

Stay warm - and DON'T shovel the snow ! The statistics on heart attacks are clear enough.
~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA
Hi Bob, thanks for your kind words :D
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by Hanny » 15 Dec 2018 11:48

maltesefalcon wrote:
15 Dec 2018 01:47

We are on the same page here. The South had a paradoxical problem. At least in part, 11 states had seceded from the Union as they felt state's rights superseded Federalism. But they could not run an efficient (war) economy, if each state fended only for itself; and refused to buy into their own version of federalism to share both resources and responsibility. It became worse as Federal troops began to virtually overrun some states, who then had less inclination to stay the course.
Can you or Bob, describe how the legal and political framework was different between the two parties?, as it pertains to the conduct of running an efficient war economy. I can give you one practical advantage the CSA had, throughout the war the north used Mil department commanders, War Dept assigned the resources to each mil district and that commander submitted his operation plans for POTUS and war Dept to consider. CS also had mil Districts but had a theatre commander, R E lee had authority over all the mil districts assets in his theatre anjd could use them as he saw fit, time and time again this allowed him to mass assets for use while his opponents less unified command structure allowed them only the resources they had been assigned, or the co operation of a a nearby mil district whose plan was concurrent with theirs. USA never had that, but it went further when Grant became a 5 star tasked with a plan to end the conflict, without POTUS interfernce.
maltesefalcon wrote:
15 Dec 2018 01:47
A Navy was of vital importance and could only be run (and paid for) on some type of central or federal level. Likewise a national rail system.
You are aware that CS States built more RR than free states in the decade upto the conflict and did so by paying for it at state level rather than internal improvement through central government disbursement?. Your point about the navy is certainly true for the north, yet for first two years of the conflict CS Naval budget was $ 14,605,777 to US $33,584, while only having 10% the productive capacity ( steam engine workshops workers in iron working etc) and ceased the war having constructed the third most powerful navy in the world, behind UK and the North.
maltesefalcon wrote:
15 Dec 2018 01:47
But just to be clear the US Army only had about 16,000 officers and men in 1861. The bulk of Northern troops were still recruited, commanded and paid for at the state level.It was the formation of a (Northern) national tax base that allowed the nucleus of what would eventually emerge as the military/industrial complex.
Same as the CSA, its regulars being dwarfed by individual States contribution. The concept of an military/industrial did not exist at start of conflict, it began to take shape during it, by wars end the north had imported over half the firearms it had issued, as its industry was still incapable of producing the volume needed for a conflict of the scale of the WBTS even by wars end.
maltesefalcon wrote:
15 Dec 2018 01:47
The south lost in other ways. Since most taxes were paid at the state level, even "loyal" property owners were screwed at war's end. The 11 states that had collected those same taxes, had obviously not given Uncle Sam its share, and the government wanted them paid again.
All taxes were at the state level, their being no federal tax in 1860. All Federal income came from the tariff and a voluntary income tax scheme.
Your referring to confiscation Acts past during the conflict, in which any person in a state deemed in rebellion ( not convicted in a court, just deemed by POTUS, overriding statuettes on how insurrection and property used in any insurrection had to be reimbursed or returned after the insurrection ended, and that included human property) was to pay a duty of 50% greater than a loyal citizen.The taxable duty refers to legislation passed in the conflict. The Income tax law, passed without any CS State consent was one such and that amount was levied post war. Second armies lived by forage in the WBTS ie they took what they required to operate from where they operated, as supply from base was largely beyond the ability of the times to supply them for extended periods in the field, they, both sides, gave promissory notes to be redeemed by their governments, for what the military took, both sides started out like this, but Pope initiated the concept that since the CS was in in rebellion he would confiscate it, forage, without recompense, thats what the oft used R E lee miscreant Pope must be suppressed quote refers to. This was adopted as US Government policy in the several confiscation acts. Southern federal government ended the war owing 000s of millions to its citizens, this was written off by the post war Amendment and left to the citizens to suffer the loss. The Southern war claims commission was set up to indemnify loyal citizens, ie anyone who could show they were loyal to the Federal government during the conflict ( took the iron clad oath, served in a mil capacity in the Union forces) could have those promissory notes payed from Federal funds. So many but not most got recompense.
Last edited by Hanny on 15 Dec 2018 12:17, edited 1 time in total.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by Hanny » 15 Dec 2018 12:04

South wrote:
15 Dec 2018 06:37
. President Lincoln thus was Commander of the US Army relying on the Militia Act of 28 February 1795.
Intrestingly that Act only allows POTUS to call up the militia after he is told by either the Courts in a state or the governor in the state that an insurrection in that state, against that State exists. POTUS only gets to be CinC when the US is opposed by a foreign nation. Something Linmjcoln denied to have happened.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by South » 15 Dec 2018 20:09

Good afternoon Hanny,

Ref the Militia Act of 1795;

"Adjustments" via the political apparatus were made to prosecute the insurrection.

Less than a year after Fort Sumter, on 11 Feb 1862, the operation of the Union's railroads and telegraph system were placed under the control of the War Department. I'm mentioning this as addressing the 1795 act and not the nationalization's efficiency for the immediate circumstances.

Early in the US Civil War, France placed Archduke Maximilian in power in Mexico. President Lincoln got the needed adjustments.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by South » 15 Dec 2018 21:08

Good afternoon Hanny,

With a large staff and some extra tables here, I'd ask Maltese to help me prep a draft for some sort of reply discussing the difference between the 2 political parties in re their legal and political framework. Being a pragmatic realist, here's just some semi-coherent comments:

The Election of 1860 had 4 (four) distinct factions. Northern and western Democrats wanted Senator Stephen Douglas. Many southern Democrats were anti-Douglas because of his slavery views. The party was split with about a third of the delegates-mostly from the south, nominated pro-slavery John Breckenridge. The Republicans nominated Abe Lincoln. There was a 4th party with candidate John Bell of Tennessee.

Without the augmenting staff and tables, I just can't ramble on the frameworks....for a broad, cohesive, coherent post.

......

More important than the CSA's theater commanders was the Union's creation of the Navy Board.This generated a revolution in naval warfare because of the new steam power AND ALSO the joint operations with the US Army. This Federal force maintained the initiative by determining the time and the place of attack. This compelled the Confederates to tie up many units along the large Confederate coast.

Above Union joint operations not only were to confront Confederate forces but also to fatigue the South's logistics. The USN blockaded southern ports (and some key southern ports were Union controlled early in the war. The US Army held terrain and severed southern railroads. This was a, if not "the" key to military operations to defeat the enemy.

The attack on Fort Sumter was on 6 April 1861. Also in April, '61 Lincoln declared a blockade of the Confederacy. The US coastal war against the Confederacy was a series of related major operations. The overall Federal strategy was to isolate the Confederacy.

Obviously I'm omitting much.

Will mention, however, Admiral Farragut's "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead" at Mobile, Alabama, lost significance to Gen Sherman's capture of Atlanta and a near-guarantee that Lincoln would be reelected and end in the Confederate surrender.

......

Pre-war southern railroad construction involved importing the rails and related supplies. The keystone is the commercial vessel carriage and the ports of discharge. Review the Union's Navy Board. The Confederacy was being strangled.


.......

For much of the pre-war decades, "the South" was a richer area than "the north" - as if this can realistically be measured and compared - The US tariff made some "adjustments" to this environment.

However, the 23 Union states (included 4 Union slave states [Lincoln was a master politician and statesman]) had the larger population-~22 million. The eventual 11 seceding states of the Confederacy had "only" 9 million which included their 3-4 million slave population.

There were ~ 110,000 manufacturing facilities in the North. The South is listed with ~ 20,000.

Back to the railroads; The South's rails were from the UK or the North. Recall again the Navy Board. It's correct that the South had about 30% of the pre-war nation's rail lines - but in economics, it's really about what they generate in wealth. The RRs were deteriorating because of lack of spares and maintenance.

......

The CSA and their navy were skilled - but the US beat German'y General Erich von Ludenorff 1935 book THE TOTAL WAR by about 7 decades.

Conclusion: "Gone With The Wind" made a comeback when President Harry Truman vetoed the 1947 Taft-Hartley law and it was passed over his veto. The northern factories moved down here.

Indecisive; What is better Dunkin Donuts of Massachuettes or their southern competition "Krispy Kream" ?


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by South » 15 Dec 2018 21:26

Good afternoon Hanny,

Something I forgot:

Ref: [Confederacy's] "constructed the third most powerful navy in the world...";

Is construction indicative of the fleet's power ? Isn't it really a pre-Jutland Sound strategic matter ?

Less the exceptions and many blockade runners, the Confederate's navy had sailing restrictions due to the USN.

......

Forgot the type of vessel and specifics but recall the Confederacy's Secretary of State Judah Benjamin, escaped to London.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2801
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by Takao » 15 Dec 2018 23:36

Hanny wrote:
15 Dec 2018 12:04
Intrestingly that Act only allows POTUS to call up the militia after he is told by either the Courts in a state or the governor in the state that an insurrection in that state, against that State exists.
That was the 1st section, read the 2nd section
SEC. 2. That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state, or of any other state or states, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress.


Hanny wrote:
15 Dec 2018 12:04
POTUS only gets to be CinC when the US is opposed by a foreign nation. Something Linmjcoln denied to have happened.
Not according to Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by Hanny » 16 Dec 2018 11:49

South wrote:
15 Dec 2018 20:09
Good afternoon Hanny,

Ref the Militia Act of 1795;

"Adjustments" via the political apparatus were made to prosecute the insurrection.

Less than a year after Fort Sumter, on 11 Feb 1862, the operation of the Union's railroads and telegraph system were placed under the control of the War Department. I'm mentioning this as addressing the 1795 act and not the nationalization's efficiency for the immediate circumstances.

Early in the US Civil War, France placed Archduke Maximilian in power in Mexico. President Lincoln got the needed adjustments.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA
AG black wrote a opinion for the executive advising POTUS had no lawfull authority to call up the militia, Lincoln replaced him and ignored it.

Your now refercing the 1795 act which was the second use of the militia Act by lincoln and Seward, the first call referenced the 1792 act, which is why its interesting, and had to appeal tO other legislation.
It states:
That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

The above delegates to the executive the power to call forth the militia, in certain circumstances , when congress is sitting, in sec 2 it refers when its not in session, puts limits of operation and that congress, not the executive is where the power to exorcise the use of force through calling forth the militia resides. As was pointed out at the time, the administration used the wrong militia act, and so the proclamation was re issued later using different legislation. Below congress limited the executive authority, by requiring all pre requisites be observed.


n all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the
United States, or of any individual state or territory, where it is
lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia
for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the
laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for
the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the
United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed
all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect.

So the 1792 is clear, insurrection only exist in a part of state against that state and the Federal executive has to have judicial notice or request from the state governor that insurrection requires federal intervention. That only leaves foreign nations, and Lincoln refused to accept that was the case. Seward sought and was denied a force bill in congress, when 7 states were out. last time anyone wanted to force a state to collect the revenue was in SC 1833 refused and a congress had determined a force bill was required for the executive to use the militia act to enforce its collection. It had further decided in RI civil war with 2 factions both claiming to be the lawful government that congress had no lawful authority to militarily intervene and support either party.


In 1861 Congress passed a new militia act making what POTUS had done legal, before then it ratified everything he had done as being done with congressional authority.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Return to “What if”