Discipline in American Civil War Armies

[Razgovory]

I have an ACW question and I thought I'd hijack this thread: I assume the Confederacy was at war during the ACW era, but was the Union at war?

The Union did not recognize the Confederacy as a country so I don't think there was a formal declaration of war.

[alfred russel]

It's not like freeing the slaves would have saved them by 1864 or 65 anyway.

And the assumption that the slaves would actually fight for their former masters in large enough numbers and with any significant ability is...well, kinda laughable.

A problem was that the army of northern Virginia was being fed ~1000 calories a day at the end of the war. Moving slaves from the fields to the battlefield would not positively contribute to that.

That said, contemporary observers in the north, south and abroad thought it possible. There were a lot of slaves: you wouldn't need many as a percent of the total to contribute significantly--30k would be larger than the entire army of northern Virginia at the end of the war, for instance.

[ulmont]

I have an ACW question and I thought I'd hijack this thread: I assume the Confederacy was at war during the ACW era, but was the Union at war?

While it was never declared, the Supreme Court in 1872 had to fix a date for purposes of a statute of limitations question.  They settled on when Lincoln said "blockade these states" as the start date.

The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed, as marking the second. But the war did not begin or close at the same time in all the States. There were two proclamations of intended blockade: the first of the 19th of April, 1861,* embracing the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; the second, of the 27th of April, 1861,t embracing the States of Virginia and North Carolina; and there were two proclamations declaring that the war had closed; one issued on the 2d of April, 1866,1 embracing the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and the other issued on the 20th of August, 1866,§ embracing the State of Texas.

In the absence of more certain criteria, of equally general application, we must take the dates of these proclamations as ascertaining the commencement and the close of the war in the States mentioned in them.

[Eddie Teach]

What took Texas so long?

[The Brain]

I have an ACW question and I thought I'd hijack this thread: I assume the Confederacy was at war during the ACW era, but was the Union at war?

While it was never declared, the Supreme Court in 1872 had to fix a date for purposes of a statute of limitations question.  They settled on when Lincoln said "blockade these states" as the start date.

The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed, as marking the second. But the war did not begin or close at the same time in all the States. There were two proclamations of intended blockade: the first of the 19th of April, 1861,* embracing the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; the second, of the 27th of April, 1861,t embracing the States of Virginia and North Carolina; and there were two proclamations declaring that the war had closed; one issued on the 2d of April, 1866,1 embracing the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and the other issued on the 20th of August, 1866,§ embracing the State of Texas.

In the absence of more certain criteria, of equally general application, we must take the dates of these proclamations as ascertaining the commencement and the close of the war in the States mentioned in them.

Seems weird that the union would be at war if it didn't recognize the secession of the states (or did it?). Shouldn't it be a domestic police action?

[Razgovory]

If they recognized the Confederacy an independent state, they wouldn't be fighting a war.

[The Brain]

If they recognized the Confederacy an independent state, they wouldn't be fighting a war.

If it was about slavery they might. But this doesn't matter for the state of war or not for the Union, I'm interested in what the Union actually did.

[Berkut]

It's not like freeing the slaves would have saved them by 1864 or 65 anyway.

And the assumption that the slaves would actually fight for their former masters in large enough numbers and with any significant ability is...well, kinda laughable.

A problem was that the army of northern Virginia was being fed ~1000 calories a day at the end of the war. Moving slaves from the fields to the battlefield would not positively contribute to that.

That said, contemporary observers in the north, south and abroad thought it possible. There were a lot of slaves: you wouldn't need many as a percent of the total to contribute significantly--30k would be larger than the entire army of northern Virginia at the end of the war, for instance.

But doubling the ANV at the end of the war wouldn't help the south. The ANV was down to 30k because they were losing the war. Twice as many of very little doesn't change anything.

[ulmont]

Seems weird that the union would be at war if it didn't recognize the secession of the states (or did it?). Shouldn't it be a domestic police action?

The case in question uses rebellion and war interchangeably.

What took Texas so long?

Too far away to realize Grant's surrender and for the Union army to arrive and restore order, so it took longer there.

[Razgovory]

If they recognized the Confederacy an independent state, they wouldn't be fighting a war.

If it was about slavery they might. But this doesn't matter for the state of war or not for the Union, I'm interested in what the Union actually did.

I have no idea why slavery would make a difference.  The Union's position was the the Confederacy was not a country and did not have any diplomatic standing.

[The Brain]

I have no idea why slavery would make a difference.

It is sometimes claimed that the war as about slavery. But it doesn't matter for what I'm interested in here.

The Union's position was the the Confederacy was not a country and did not have any diplomatic standing.

Which makes a Union at war weird to me. At war with what?

[Berkut]

At war with a rebellious section of the country. How is this complicated?

[Razgovory]

At war with rebels.  I'm not seeing the problem here.  If the Union recognized the Confederacy as a independent state, then they would have no grounds to claim that the Confederate states are part of the US.  Do other countries give diplomatic recognition to insurrections in their own territory?  I don't think Syria built an Embassy and sent official ambassadors to ISIS.  Ukraine has not done so for either the Dontsk People's Republic or the Luhansk People's Republic.

[The Brain]

At war with a rebellious section of the country. How is this complicated?

How is it not? The Union hadn't declared war. There was no legal entity to be at war with.

Is the US at war with a single violent criminal? Probably not. A hundred criminals? A hundred thousand criminals? Well... The line isn't obvious to me.

[The Brain]

At war with rebels.  I'm not seeing the problem here.  If the Union recognized the Confederacy as a independent state, then they would have no grounds to claim that the Confederate states are part of the US.  Do other countries give diplomatic recognition to insurrections in their own territory?  I don't think Syria built an Embassy and sent official ambassadors to ISIS.  Ukraine has not done so for either the Dontsk People's Republic or the Luhansk People's Republic.

Why would the Union recognize the Confederacy?

Likely other countries do not operate under US law, and I don't know much about for instance Syrian or Ukrainian law.