Packard Forum Index » General

The CSA did not initially need to invade the North to achieve its goal. The North did need to invade the South if its goal was to keep the area under its control instead of letting it go.

The later Southern invasions that ended at Antiedam (Sharpsburg) and Gettysburg were efforts to bring about a negotiated peace to capitalize on Northern war weariness. The North's much greater population and industrial capability meant it would win a war of attrition eventually.

But if J.E. B. Stuart's troopers had been mounted in Packards, things might have been different (feeble attempt to bring this back)

Rusty,

"the south penetrated northern territory long before the north invaded the south."

When General Irwin McDowell marched the 35,000 strong (the largest army yet amassed at that time on the North American continent) across the Potomac River on July 16, 1861 to engage General Beauregard's Confederate Army of The Potomac encamped some 25 miles south of Washington, D.C. at Manassas Junction, Virginia he invaded the sovereign state of Virginia, a state at that time legally seceded from the Union and a part of the Confederate States of America. The Confederacy invaded Kentucky (twice), Maryland and Pennsylvania in 1862 and 1863 but the first battle of the war was fought on Confederate soil in an around Manassas Junction, Virginia as a result of a Union incursion into Confederate territory and the great preponderance of the remainder of the war was fought in the south.

The stated reason for the initial Union call for volunteers was to, "recapture forts, customs houses, etc. now seized by secessionists." Since these, "seized," sites were located in the south, it would've been rather difficult to recapture them without invasion. The intent was pretty clear.

The south had no reason to invade the north. During the great panic of 1837, the devastating depression that followed it and the panic of 1857 the industrial north suffered greatly while the south, with its cotton-based economy remained prosperous and was unaffected. The majority of the textile mills in the north, as well as the huge textile industry in Britain at that time, were almost completely dependent upon southern cotton and, in point of fact, official records indicate that 57% of the United States' total foreign export for calendar year 1860 consisted of southern cotton. In the economic context of that time - cotton really was king. Therein lies the REAL reason that there was never any question of allowing the southern states to secede, peacefully or otherwise.

Politicians of that era were no more likely to let that amount of revenue, with its vast potential for additional graft, escape them without a fight than are modern ones. The firebrands and demagogues in the south should've anticipated this but, as usual, their self-serving politicians were no more prone to logical thought, recognition of reality and prudent action than professional politicians have ever been. Their self-interests get in the way. Historically, when politicians have achieved generally good result - it's nearly always been purely accidental and, the more of them there are the less likely this is to happen.

With this I am going to bow out of this topic. It ain't Packard-related and the contemplation of politicians, past, present, conservative, liberal, Whig, Tory, Republican, Democrat - whatever - puts me off my feed.

Looks like y'all had some fun with this topic while I was away. If you're curious about how far the sovereignty movement has come along, you can go check at www.sovereignstates.net

I assume it was legal for a foreigner to own property in the Confederacy.

To this day the US government owns property all over the world including Guantanamo Bay military base in Cuba ( they lease that one).

State buildings and land would belong to the state, whether the state was part of the Confederacy or the Union. But buildings built by the Union, on land bought or leased, would continue to belong to the Union.

I assume in fairness the Confederacy should not have seized such property without permission or compensation.

There must have been post offices and other buildings belonging to the Union that would have been no use to them after the south seceded. It would have made sense to offer them to the Confederate government, and if there were any they didn't want, to sell them to the highest bidder.

It would have taken several years to work out the details. That is what I meant in my initial statement.

Or just call it a "wash" or "quid pro quo" for all the tax dollars previously contributed by the citizens of those states. You have to assume their tax dollars went to something they should keep.

"Or just call it a "wash" or "quid pro quo" for all the tax dollars previously contributed by the citizens of those states. You have to assume their tax dollars went to something they should keep."

Provided they paid off their share of the national debt.

You can see where this kind of thing could have been debated for years.

That would have been the smartest strategy for the South. To set up a committee to negotiate these details and change the debate from "Should the South secede?" to "On what terms should the South secede?".

They could have kept jawing for years and by the time they got done, the Confederacy would have been a fait accompli and nobody would have cared about the details.

"Paying their fair share of the debt."

I agree. Their fair share could be based upon population and adjusted to the extent the state is a donor state or beneficiary state.

That being the case, you could probably deduce in today's environment, secession might be the best economic deal available - before the US Government has a chance to put all of us states on the brink of bankruptcy. Some are already there.