150 years ago. An excellent summation of why the Confederacy lost the battle in the western theater -- and the war.
The Campaign for Atlanta.
I have long believed that Jefferson Davis condemned the South to defeat by his selection and backing -- long after common sense should have dictated otherwise -- of two incompetent, fatally flawed generals: Braxton Bragg and John Bell Hood.
This article also reminds us of the remarkable battlefield talent and uncanny political prescience of one of the true heroes of the Confederacy -- Pat Cleburne.
There was a better choice: Patrick Cleburne, the “Stonewall of the West,” arguably the best Confederate general outside Virginia. An Irish immigrant to the South who had served in the British Army, Cleburne had performed magnificently in all the actions in which he was engaged. Most notably, it was Cleburne and his division that repulsed the main attack by Sherman at Chattanooga. It was said that Yankees dreaded seeing the blue flag of his division across the battlefield. But choosing Cleburne would have required Davis to promote him over more senior officers. Given his reputation, this might have been possible, but for one thing: Cleburne’s heretical views on slavery.
By late 1863, it had become obvious to Cleburne that the Confederacy was losing the war because of limitations of manpower and resources. Also by this time, the Union was enlisting black soldiers. So in 1864 he addressed the leadership of the Army of Tennessee, calling for emancipating slaves and enlisting them in the Confederate Army to secure Southern independence. The question, he said, was essentially this: Which does the South desire more — independence or slavery?
His proposal was met with stunned silence. Those present agreed that it would go no further, but word leaked out. Members of the government were made aware of the letter he wrote outlining the proposal:
Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late. . . . It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision. . . . It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.
General Howell Cobb of Georgia provided the official position of the Confederacy: “The day you make soldiers of [slaves] is the beginning of the end of the revolution. If slaves will make good soldiers, our whole theory of slavery is wrong.” Cleburne’s proposal effectively killed his prospects for further promotion.
So, instead of Cleburne, the Army of the Tennessee got John Bell Hood, lost Atlanta, and spent itself to bloody rags at the Battles of Franklin and Nashville. And Pat Cleburne paid the ultimate price that most good and honorable men do when fighting under the leadership of incompetents -- he was killed along with many, many other good men who deserved better at the senseless battle of Franklin.
19 comments:
Crap! And all this time I've been thinking we lost the war because we ran out of grits and cornbread. Whoda thunk?
On a serious note, the Civil War might have finished slavery as it once was, but we are now facing a new slavery in the making, which is the total control (think transformation)the Bo-Z0 crowd is trying to shove down our throats.
We've recently learned that B0-Zo's lines in the sand are as enduring as "puppy love," but he is about to learn he's crossed the line that red, white, and blue Americans will not put up with---without extracting penalty from the top down.
The pen is mightier than the sword---until the "pen holder" is laid low (like six-foot deep).
Film at eleven or when TSHTF, whichever comes first.
Besides wars of survival, Wars are a political construct. It shouldn't surprise anyone that political correct generals would be promoted over competent ones. Its the main reason nations eventually fall.
Is that why the Union named military bases after Bragg and Hood?
Interesting article. I have studied, and walked the battlefields of Chickamauga, Chattanooga, and Stones River. It seems to me that the Confederacy failed to capitalize on previous victories and tactical advantages on several occasions. In my opinion, this could only be due to failures of leadership. Your article seems to bear this out. Thank you for posting this.
Never heard of Cleburn before. He was clearly ahead of his time.
It was obvious to anyone then with a forward vision that human chattel slavery was a non-starter in a technological world, one containing large, complicated machines for doing that which slaves had previously done. Uneducated workers (slaves. to be precise) don't fit into such a world. You must choose: technology or slavery.
Those who chose slavery would soon be left in the dust by those who chose technology. I think it is improbable slavery would have lasted even into the Gay Nineties had the North simply patted the South on the ass and wished them Godspeed.
My great-great grandfather fought at Franklin and in his book, "Co. Aytch," he wrote, "Death had held high carnival there that night." It was a hell of a place.
How many Cleburne's can be unearthed to whitewash the fact that the Confederacy was a morally bankrupt effort to protect an aristocracy built on human suffering and subjugation. The fact that he was shut-up, proves the point.
Their sending poor southern folks to their death to protect privilege is directly related the current conservative movement's use of working folks to protect the corporations and rich of today. Neo-confederate conservatives can go to hell, including those idiots who want Constitutional amendments to turn our Federal Constitution into the Confederate one.
Good leadership and tactical advantages can win short wars, but long wars typically cannot be won when based on morally bankrupt ideas, as in the Confederate's case. It becomes harder for the aristocracy to recruit the cannon fodder without draconian efforts (such as the Confederate brown shirt home guard). The confederacy was no f'ing noble cause. They were a stain on the ideals of our republic.
The supreme irony here is that he was of course correct about the North writing the history of the war but even further, I am a Southerner but I also had occasion to live and work in the North for many years. Today, the North is a seething mass of racism while the South is far more advanced in colorblind society and yet a major media industry in the North is portraying today's Southerners as cartoon characters lynching nightly and counting sums with their toes. Almost as if they are desperately holding on to their party line even after 150 years.
To Fedup..
Fort Bragg was founded pre-Civil War, but was named by the Lt. who established it, after his former commanding officer, Braxton Bragg. It is ironic that it was founded to control Native Americans being shoved into the newly created Mendocino Indian Reservation there (later taken from them, of course). Bragg, of course, went on to attempt to protect the Confederate Slavery Aristocracy. Ultimately, he became a whipping boy use by those promoting the non-existent Confederate 'Noble Cause'. If Cleburne was worried about subjugation from the victorious Federal forces, he was wrong. Apart from the short reconstruction, the South nearly returned to the old ways, and wrote their own bullshit 'Noble Cause' history, including the presently discussed article.
It's unfair to label Hood as an incompetent. He had been a redoubtable division commander, but he was an unqualified disaster as an army commander. The Federals had a similar situation in Ambrose Burnside, but they at least had the good sense to demote him after one disaster.
The South lost because it was ruled by Democrats.
And that automatically implies an corrupt aristocracy living off the slavery of a lower class.
Three things I take away by reading this:
1st, some things never change in that today Cleburne's prediction STILL holds true.
"Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late. . . . It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision". Think of all that is happening today, along with the fact that there were aspects of both sides that were most assuredly NOT noble, but merely portrayed as such by those with certain agendas. sound familiar?
2nd, Cleburne's promotion was denied because of his views on the very principle that justified their participation in the war in the first place: Liberty. The principle stands, period. If you fight for freedom, then grant it as well... otherwise you are just another tyrant. Those who can't see that in the next war for independence will cripple those who do.
3rd, the other reason he wasn't promoted (I have no idea how much a part this played, but it must have had relevance here) was that there were more senior, and "safer" prospects to choose from. Accepted military doctrine is a rigid embodiment of encumbering tradition, and regulation. Because some things never seem to change, there is less strength in the traditional thinker.
In reference to Anonymous (6/1, 06:03), and in the spirit of non traditional thinking, I say start from the bottom and work your way up the chain with the extraction of "penalties". I don't think you would have to work your way up very far before those at the top started sweating. Then, keep exacting penalties until those at the top are utterly broken, and shown to be as powerless as they are. Better to destroy a man than martyr him. Just my opinion though.
Anonymous coward at 10:11:
"Short reconstruction"? The ruinous consequences of "reconstruction" are still with us today, 149 years later!
In fact, Cleburne was exactly right: the South was utterly subjugated. And that was after the rape and arson that the Northern armies had already perpetrated.
America's present troubles began with reconstruction. The modern big-government mentality was born in the Lincoln administration, and the Johnson. The North treated the South as if it were full of criminals, forcing new constitutions on the southern states, and disarming their black populations. That disarmament is still here, in places like Durham County, NC, 149 years later!
Anonymous, yours is a typical "the North won" attitude, which has caused the arrival of what we now have today, and will cause the re-sundering of our Republic very, very soon. I for one would be very glad to be permanently divorced from the European-clone Northern states. You all don't want guns? Fine, we'll take all your arms factories. And you all can take your socialism and your economic slavery and suffer without the South's contributions.
The south lost because common sense indicates that when your primary work force can't read or write (i.e. slaves for the trolls reading with this IQs below 80), they ain't inventen' much of them fancy smatsy "tech-nology".
The best generals couldn't overcome the inefficiencies of a slave economy over a somewhat free market economy in the north (sure it was not roth bardian free market, but certainly more free market than the south).
something also tells me the plantation owners weren't busy inventing technology but more busy raping their slaves, beating their slaves, or if they were somewhat decent just using their free labor for nightly cocktail parties. Such behavior is not exactly puttin' forth the 99% perspiration that inventors like Thomass Edison needed in order to invent tech that revolutionized society.
http://www.lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2014/05/if-south-had-won.html
Wait a sec - are those trashing the South as making up a noble cause and saying they were morally bankrupt actually also saying the north was not?!?!?!
Lincoln offered a permanent constitutional amendment to forever allow slavery! He also wanted to round up all the blacks, slave or not, and deport them to Haiti, Liberia, or anywhere but here. He advocated for sending all of the blacks out by force for his entire adult political life, too.
How morally just was it for Lincoln to shut down newspapers that correctly pointed out what a fraud he was and how the Founders very clearly allowed secession? Or to intercept mail critical of him? Or to throw thousands of people in prison withiut charge or trial for simply speaking out against him with political speech?
My favorite are the types above who recite neo con and splc Marxist talking points about Lincoln and claim he "freed the slaves." Yet those who actually read the EP find out that no single slave was exempted, but instead it only applied to states and counties where the North did not have control - so the EP was only in effect in areas where the war criminals like Sherman and grant could do nothing about it. Some freedom for the slaves!
This was in comparison with his first inaugural address, where he threatened military invasion on any state not collecting the full tariff rate. Gee, which do you think mattered more to him?
By the way, NYC and other northern areas had documented riots over the EP - the northern soldiers themselves and the people did not want to fight over slavery, and were not under the impression that they were. After all, why did drunken war criminal Grant run a slave based business prior to the war? Why did Lincoln enforce the fugitive slave act and return slaves from Kentucky and Maryland who had escaped back to their slave masters if the war and cause of the north was to end slavery?
Yes, the confederate govt clearly had racists and racist policies and statements related to the war - but that was no different from the north, and in some ways Lincoln was worse. Heck, northern generals outright banned Jews from being in certain locations and states - as opposed to a Jew serving very high up in the Concederate govt. The main difference was the north wanted a Hamiltonian protectionist economic system with a very powerful federal govt, while the south wanted free trade and a less powerful govt. Not to mention the great moral Lincoln and his generals intentionally targeting women, children, and slaves for murder, rape, theft, and assault while burning down entire towns and farms - Osama bin laden applied those same military tactics of targeting civilians not too long ago in NYC.
The pledge of allegiance was written by an actual socialist who wanted to reinforce the fact in now mandatory govt school brainwashing that despite what the colonies did and the founders said, states could never leave the union - a principal that the morally superior Karl Marx and Hitler would later praise as being correct - even the ones like Virginia that explicitly added in an "opt out" clause when they ratified the Constitution.
I have zero problem with trashing the govt of the confederacy, but to act as if the northern govt was at least not as bad is completely inaccurate and sounds as if it is a 7th grader repeating their civics book written by william ayers.
Lastly, if you like Obama - then you should really love Lincoln. There isn't much Obama has done that Lincoln did not do first, and that is why Marxist professors and historians worship Lincoln - he dramatically increased the size and scope of the federal government.
You have quite a Northern following.
This thing ain't over. As soon as all the gun manufactures get through moving South of the Mason-Dixon line the South is going to counter account. After the South wins we are going to enslave all Federal Employees.
Post a Comment