Discipline in American Civil War Armies

[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.

Who says you need a legal entity to be at war with?

And no, the "Union" did not declare war, because there was no such entity, legal or otherwise, defined as the "Union" to begin with - that is just a description of the parts of the United States that were at war with the other parts of the United States that were in a state of rebellion.

There was no declaration of war, because, as you say, there was nobody to declare a legal war against, what with not being able to declare war on yourself and all.

So what made it a war in a legal sense?

It was a war in the vernacular sense, but not a constitutionally defined war.

That would make sense to me.

[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.

Do declarations of war matter? By that logic the US hasn't been at war since WW2

I don't know to what extent they did in the 1860s. They apparently still mattered to some degree when the US declared war on Japan AFTER a massive military attack and a declaration of war on the US by Japan.

[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.

Who says you need a legal entity to be at war with?

And no, the "Union" did not declare war, because there was no such entity, legal or otherwise, defined as the "Union" to begin with - that is just a description of the parts of the United States that were at war with the other parts of the United States that were in a state of rebellion.

There was no declaration of war, because, as you say, there was nobody to declare a legal war against, what with not being able to declare war on yourself and all.

So what made it a war in a legal sense?

What makes you think that, during the 1860's, there was a legally recognized definition of what does or does not constitute a war?

I'm asking because I don't know. My impression is that many legally recognized definitions of various kinds existed in the 1860s.

[The Brain]

The impact of freeing slaves

How exactly could they do that? Each state would have to vote to free their slaves individually. None of them would have done so. So what is this shit? Some kind of fantasy? Why not speculate if the Confederacy had nuclear bombs or battle droids?

Do you have a map?

[The Brain]

I think rebels are like pirates in that they are lawbreakers that are stopped by a military force.  I don't know when the ideas regarding who is and who is not a legal combatant were accepted by the people in the Western World.

The US has not declared war on anyone for 70 years.  The US has been at war a whole bunch of times since then.  I think a formal declaration of war would result in certain powers moving from the Executive to the Congress, and all the US presidents in that time have wanted to avoid that.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some legal things in the 1860s that depended on whether or not the US was at war. For instance, was the crime of treason possible without a state of war? IIRC selling defense secrets to the Russians during the Cold War wasn't treason in the US (note: I don't know this but I seem to remember something along those lines). I don't know if treason was possible in a vernacular war.

[Berkut]

I suspect that a decision in 1862 to selectively offer freedom to slaves willing to fight (if we assume such a thing could somehow be politically acceptable) would not result in a significant increase in actual military capability of the South. Manpower was only one of their many issues. Not a small one to be sure, but still just one of many.

The south had a white population of 5.5m and per Wikipedia got 750k to 1m under arms. Obviously that level of participation would not be met with the slave population, but it didn't need to in order to have an appreciable effect. Also, if you look at the casualties the south sustained (~300k dead, many more wounded and captured), it should be clear that a shortage of military manpower was a problem. I get that there were food shortages especially late in the war. However, a soldier would be more valuable than a field laborer.

The level of participation of white soldiers being what it was was directly BECAUSE they had a lot of slaves able to at least in theory do a lot of that work the soldiers off fighting were not doing.

You are asking us to believe that the overall participation level could have been significantly increased - I've never seen any data that suggests that the South had a surplus of labor available, it just wasn't white so could not fight. In fact, everything I've seen, heard, and read is exactly the opposite - that the South had their existing troops often deserting to go back and work the farm to get a harvest in to keep people from starving. Hell, the entire impetus of the Gettysburg campaign was in great part to feed the ANV from Pennsylvania instead of Virginia.


The South had a huge shortage of labor in fact, and I think they put more men into the field than they could actually support. And history bears that out, with every single year seeing more and more stories and reports of the army lacking basic supplies and food. Each year was worse, which means that there was never an actually sustainable moment. Taking away from the people actually creating food and moving them over to the group consuming it would simply accelerate and already unsustainable process.

The impact of freeing slaves would do much more than providing more soldiers: it would make possible foreign intervention, reduce northern recruiting, and reduce black support for the union war effort.

Foreign intervention would require much more than freeing slaves to serve in the military, it would require ending slavery altogether, even for those NOT in the military. That is an entirely different proposition.

And how would it reduce northern recruiting?

Or black support for the war effort? You think blacks in the north would suddenly be all "Oh, I guess the South is super awesome now, they freed some slaves to fight so they could keep the other ones enslaved!" By the time the war was on, there was no way anything the south could do politically to effect the northern will to fight, except actually giving up.

[alfred russel]

Why would it reduce northern recruitment?

The North had something like 200k black soldiers--100k of those were former slaves. There was also a significant abolitionist contingent in the union army. I don't think it is a stretch that those soliders would be less motivated to join without the issue of emancipation.

[alfred russel]

How exactly could they do that? Each state would have to vote to free their slaves individually. None of them would have done so. So what is this shit? Some kind of fantasy? Why not speculate if the Confederacy had nuclear bombs or battle droids?

Slavery was constitutionally protected in the CSA. Probably nothing could be done by the book (until it was too late probably nothing could be done at all).

I've linked you to the Cleburne proposal. If you want I can dig up newspaper editorials. Bobby Lee was apparently in favor of it by war's end--though i'm not sure if that was universal emancipation or just those willing to fight. If you can find a similar amount of proposals during the war to deploy nuclear bombs or battle droids I'll agree with you.

[alfred russel]

I suspect that a decision in 1862 to selectively offer freedom to slaves willing to fight (if we assume such a thing could somehow be politically acceptable) would not result in a significant increase in actual military capability of the South. Manpower was only one of their many issues. Not a small one to be sure, but still just one of many.

The south had a white population of 5.5m and per Wikipedia got 750k to 1m under arms. Obviously that level of participation would not be met with the slave population, but it didn't need to in order to have an appreciable effect. Also, if you look at the casualties the south sustained (~300k dead, many more wounded and captured), it should be clear that a shortage of military manpower was a problem. I get that there were food shortages especially late in the war. However, a soldier would be more valuable than a field laborer.

The level of participation of white soldiers being what it was was directly BECAUSE they had a lot of slaves able to at least in theory do a lot of that work the soldiers off fighting were not doing.

You are asking us to believe that the overall participation level could have been significantly increased - I've never seen any data that suggests that the South had a surplus of labor available, it just wasn't white so could not fight. In fact, everything I've seen, heard, and read is exactly the opposite - that the South had their existing troops often deserting to go back and work the farm to get a harvest in to keep people from starving. Hell, the entire impetus of the Gettysburg campaign was in great part to feed the ANV from Pennsylvania instead of Virginia.


The South had a huge shortage of labor in fact, and I think they put more men into the field than they could actually support. And history bears that out, with every single year seeing more and more stories and reports of the army lacking basic supplies and food. Each year was worse, which means that there was never an actually sustainable moment. Taking away from the people actually creating food and moving them over to the group consuming it would simply accelerate and already unsustainable process.

The impact of freeing slaves would do much more than providing more soldiers: it would make possible foreign intervention, reduce northern recruiting, and reduce black support for the union war effort.

Foreign intervention would require much more than freeing slaves to serve in the military, it would require ending slavery altogether, even for those NOT in the military. That is an entirely different proposition.

And how would it reduce northern recruiting?

Or black support for the war effort? You think blacks in the north would suddenly be all "Oh, I guess the South is super awesome now, they freed some slaves to fight so they could keep the other ones enslaved!" By the time the war was on, there was no way anything the south could do politically to effect the northern will to fight, except actually giving up.

I think the proposals often went to universal emancipation rather than just those willing to fight, but to the larger point about food production....

How many slaves were picking cotton that was under an export embargo? My understanding is that there was a tremendous waste of labor on this front.

Also, except at a few moments (I think there were issues just before the Maryland campaign), my understanding was that the army stayed relatively well fed until 1864. There were food riots in places such as Richmond in 1863--the same can not be said for civilian populations, especially near the war zone.

[Berkut]

The decision to keep cotton production going was not made because there was a bunch of idle military age black men sitting around with nothing better to do, it was made because the South didn't have iron control over their cotton producers and they still wanted to make money, and the South needed the income. That doesn't change if they put a bunch of slaves into the military. You are bringing up a separate, non-dependent issue. That problems exists (or does not exist) irrespective of this claim.

Your understanding of Southern logistics is incorrect, and it isn't about just the army being fed anyway, it is about everyone being fed. Putting more men into the army rather than in production means less food is created period, and less is moved around.

But I think this debate has run its course. Putting slaves into the army, even as early as 1863/63 doesn't change the basic calculus that meant that the South was doomed, nor is there any reason to even believe it actually would make the South more capable of resistance. Their inability to resist the Union was based in a lot more than just simple number of men able to be put into uniform, and increasing that number at the expense of their logistical vulnerability (which was historically fatal already) doesn't seem to have much evidence that it would make any difference at all.

""Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."

[alfred russel]

""Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."

Obviously incorrect, to such as an extent that I think it invalidates your other points. Everyone in this discussion is an amateur, and I don't think any of us have been discussing tactics. 

[viper37]

Why not speculate if the Confederacy had nuclear bombs or battle droids?

I'd buy that novel! 

[PDH]

I'm asking because I don't know. My impression is that many legally recognized definitions of various kinds existed in the 1860s.

As I recall, and I am not an expert at all concerning this, if the Union were to formally declare war (which did indeed exist in the 1860s) that would open a can of worms - you can only declare war on a legitimate state.  The stance was always to treat this as an attempt at armed rebellion being put down by federal authority.  That made it an internal issue and potentially made it harder for outsiders to recognize the Confederacy unless they were clearly winning and they were a sustainable entity.  From what I recall, the Union protested at every opportunity when foreign governments received Confederate diplomats - they were not diplomats in the eyes of the Union.

[viper37]

How exactly could they do that? Each state would have to vote to free their slaves individually. None of them would have done so. So what is this shit? Some kind of fantasy? Why not speculate if the Confederacy had nuclear bombs or battle droids?

Slavery was constitutionally protected in the CSA. Probably nothing could be done by the book (until it was too late probably nothing could be done at all).

I've linked you to the Cleburne proposal. If you want I can dig up newspaper editorials. Bobby Lee was apparently in favor of it by war's end--though i'm not sure if that was universal emancipation or just those willing to fight. If you can find a similar amount of proposals during the war to deploy nuclear bombs or battle droids I'll agree with you.

Valmy is not debating that some individuals were in favor of that.  He is not even debating that it was discussed in the government.  He is debating that it was a technical impossibility.  Legally impossible, by the constitution, so all States would need to approve it.  Technically impossible, because of all the conditions... They were slaves, fighting for their former masters?  That did not often happen.  You need to arm them, train them, feed them.  By 1864, realistically, how much training can you give them before sending them to the front?

Even if they freed and armed slaves in december 1864, even if a significant number agreed to fight for the South in exchange of their freedom, it wouldn't change much.

As was said in Gettysburg, they should have freed the slaves first, then declare independance.
That's about the only way I can think of why the South would receive significant foreign help from the United Kingdom.  And even there, it is a big stretch.  It's not like the UK could realistically field 500k-1M soldiers to send them to the US in support of the Confederacy.  There are all kinds of logistical and political constraints.

Now, however, once the issue of slavery is gone, even with the long list of grievances by the South, would there still be a popular will to secede from the North?  I doubt it, but I'm no expert.

[Berkut]

""Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."

Obviously incorrect, to such as an extent that I think it invalidates your other points. Everyone in this discussion is an amateur, and I don't think any of us have been discussing tactics. 

IT's a quote, I don't get to change it so it applies perfectly.

But I thought you were clever enough to understand the intent behind it anyway. I still think you are in fact.