American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

March 11,1861 Confederate constitution adopted


In Montgomery, Alabama, delegates from South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas adopt the Permanent Constitution of the Confederate States of America.

The constitution resembled the Constitution of the United States, even repeating much of its language, but was actually more comparable to the Articles of Confederation--the initial post-Revolutionary War U.S. constitution--in its delegation of extensive powers to the states. The constitution also contained substantial differences from the U.S. Constitution in its protection of slavery, which was "recognized and protected" in slave states and territories. However, in congruence with U.S. policy since the beginning of the 19th century, the foreign slave trade was prohibited. The constitution provided for six-year terms for the president and vice president, and the president was ineligible for successive terms. Although a presidential item veto was granted, the power of the central Confederate government was sharply limited by its dependence on state consent for the use of any funds and resources.

Although Britain and France both briefly considered entering the Civil War on the side of the South, the Confederate States of America, which survived until April 1865, never won foreign recognition as an independent government.




[url="mtdavies@msn.com"]Major Mike Davies[/url]
4/1/XXV
<i><b>"Keystone Brigade"</b></i>
Army of the James

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Zettlemyer</i>
<br />the power of the central Confederate government was sharply limited by its dependence on state consent for the use of any funds and resources.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This in itself is a major reason why the war was lost. I myself am no Confederate sympathizer, I tend to have more blue run through me than red.....even though I am here as ANV Commander and am a reb in reenacting (will change to a yank sometime in the future). There appears to be an alluring thing about them irregardless of slavery....I guess often I heard it said that at least in reenacting the rebs have more fun.....[:D][:D]

But either way many of the policies follwed were not conducive to what may have been needed to win the war.

<center>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/"]<b>Colonel Scott Ludwig</b>[/url]



Commanding Officer
[url="http://scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/ANV"]Army of Northern Virginia
[/url]CSA

[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/index.html"]Personal Command Tent[/url]

For the Glory of Virginia!!</center>

Hi Mike.

I was drawn to this post by one word in it's title - "Phony".

I'd be interested to hear your reason(s) for describing the Constitution of the Confederate States as phony. [?]

Is it because - <font color="red">" The constitution resembled the Constitution of the United States, even repeating much of its language "</font id="red"> or do Ye have another reason?

Jest curious . . . but I'd appreciate Your thought on the matter. [:)]

Regards,

Pat.

Colonel Patrick G.M.Carroll,
II Corps, Commanding.
"Spartan Southrons"
Army of Georgia,
C.S.A.

" When My Country takes it's rightful place, amongst the Nations of the World, then and only then, let My Epitaph be written. "

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Scott Ludwig</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Zettlemyer</i>
<br />the power of the central Confederate government was sharply limited by its dependence on state consent for the use of any funds and resources.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This in itself is a major reason why the war was lost. I myself am no Confederate sympathizer, I tend to have more blue run through me than red.....even though I am here as ANV Commander and am a reb in reenacting (will change to a yank sometime in the future). There appears to be an alluring thing about them irregardless of slavery....I guess often I heard it said that at least in reenacting the rebs have more fun.....[:D][:D]

But either way many of the policies follwed were not conducive to what may have been needed to win the war.

<center>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/"]<b>Colonel Scott Ludwig</b>[/url]



Commanding Officer
[url="http://scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/ANV"]Army of Northern Virginia
[/url]CSA

[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/index.html"]Personal Command Tent[/url]

For the Glory of Virginia!!</center>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Another major reason( and I believe a weekness of the Articles of Confederation) which the most common verbiage you here is the Union far outnumbered the Confederacy in resources and manpower and this by itself lost the Confederacy the war.

We hear of the big shortages in troops near the end of the war. The biggest problem is that the Richmond goverment had less control of the the forces raised than the Washington goverment had. The Governors were very conscious of their power and seemed loathe to submit to 'another' central goverment controlling them. So thousands of troops were able to avoided military altogether or join a state militia who's governor would not allow them to be under the control of Richmond or allow them service out of their own state. So although the South was outnumbered in population by the north, the South failed to utilize the forces they did have. So one of the compelling reasons for the sucession(not wanting to submit to Federal authority), and an abuse of power they 'corrected' in their version of the Constitution was a significant contributing factor to their ultimate defeat. Ironic[:p]

Col. Phil Driscoll
1st Brigade/1st Division/VCorps/AoP

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Phil Driscoll

"... the Union far outnumbered the Confederacy in resources and manpower and this by itself lost the Confederacy the war."

-------------

The Union's vastly superior manpower and resources <i>ought</i> to have enabled it to win the war in a swift, decisive campaign in 1861. But sheer Yankee incompetence allowed the Confederacy to survive as long as it did.

Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Phil Driscoll

"... the Union far outnumbered the Confederacy in resources and manpower and this by itself lost the Confederacy the war."

-------------
Originally posted by Col. Rich White
The Union's vastly superior manpower and resources ought to have enabled it to win the war in a swift, decisive campaign in 1861. But sheer Yankee incompetence allowed the Confederacy to survive as long as it did.

---------------


While currently enrolled in the Confederacy, I think incompetence is a little harsh. At the begining of the war--trained manpower(and officiter material) might have favored the Confederacy. Troop strength also sees to have been at near parity. Add to that the burden of the offensive for the union (in addition to the lack of realization that the defensive because of technology changes had become subsantaily stronger, and Napoleonic tactics no longer were as effective), and the Union had a far greater task on their hands than they thought.

I will agree with you all that the weaker central federal government of the Confederacy did, hinder the war effort, however.
BG Laabs
3/III A of M

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
<br />TRhe Union's vastly superior manpower and resources <i>ought</i> to have enabled it to win the war in a swift, decisive campaign in 1861. But sheer Yankee incompetence allowed the Confederacy to survive as long as it did.

Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

There's a problem with this, you don't wake up one day and have a full functioning war machine. It has to be assembeled and built over time. We didn't wake up the day after 9/11 or Pearl Harbor and have the forces we needed to fight those conflicts. Things are built over time. Consider that at the start of the war the standing Army was vastly too small for the job needed of pacifying the South. Material, men, organization, transport, foodstock, territory gains, etc, etc have all got to be met.

What can be considered incompetance is the fact it took so long for the Union to find the correct group of men needed to win the war. As the South started off within the first two years of having a pretty solid base of leadership, but as the war progresses they find themselves loosing those solid leaders as the Union gains theirs.

Funny thing is at the start everyone thought Winfield Scott was nuts with the Anaconda Plan and chased him out of office, in the end he was right, it was exactly how they won the war.

<center>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/"]<b>Colonel Scott Ludwig</b>[/url]



Commanding Officer
[url="http://scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/ANV"]Army of Northern Virginia
[/url]CSA

[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/index.html"]Personal Command Tent[/url]

For the Glory of Virginia!!</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
<br />quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Phil Driscoll

"... the Union far outnumbered the Confederacy in resources and manpower and this by itself lost the Confederacy the war."

-------------

The Union's vastly superior manpower and resources <i>ought</i> to have enabled it to win the war in a swift, decisive campaign in 1861. But sheer Yankee incompetence allowed the Confederacy to survive as long as it did.

Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV



<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think you misunderstood(probably my poor wording) what I was driving at in this post.[:D] I was not making this claim-only pointing out that this claim is commonly held. I don't believe the disparity in numbers was as great as Confederate apologists [;)] would have you believe especially when they talk about the end of the war and it does a diservice to both sides. What I was getting at is there were many more troops available to the Confederacy even at the end of the war than is common knowledge. Unfortunately(for the government in Richmond) they were not able to call on them, as the were under the control of the state governments(governors) who were loathe to part with their troops. IF Jeff Davis was guilty of of trying to defend everywhere with the subsequent dispersal of forces, than the governors of the respective states were even more quilty. And the authors of the Confederacy's Constitution intentionaly weakened the central authority and with that the ability of the central government to wage effective war. So if the Confederacy was constantly outnumbered, a significant portion of the blame is it's own fault caused by an inherent flaw in their form of government.
Now whether the Richmond government could have fed and clothed all these additional troops especially at the end of the war is a different matter.

So given the incompetentcy of the Union in the first year of the war, why didn't the Confederacy win it outright. Why didn't they march on Washington right after Bull Run? Why did they surrender the inintiative back to the Union? [;)]



Col. Phil Driscoll
1st Brigade/1st Division/VCorps/AoP

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />Scott - I would say that we were MUCH more prepared to take affirmative action after 911 than Pearl Harbor.

The learning curve is still there of course but the ramping up was much simpler than what happened in 1941. The War in Iraq on the other hand has taxed our resources to the limit.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well yeah naturally Bill were not in a state of isolationism as we were pre-Pearl Harbor. That's just a given. The point was about preperation, even so we were not 100% ready, and still not so for the type of warfare given by 9/11, but like you mentioned, its all in the learning curve.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />But you make a VERY good point - the US in 1861 was NOT ready for war. If a foreign power such as England had challened the water ways we would have had to spend at least a year in ship production to even cope with what they could field.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

What little navy was there in '61 would have been no match for the English. But even so later in the war with round about 2 million men under arms possible war with the Union could have been costly fo the English, especially in terms of the vulnerability of Canada. But a man with the last name Adams took care of that, Charles Francis Adams to be exact. The Trent Affair was the closet it got, besides Seward screaming about the rams, in which Adams toned it down. In the end Northern Grain won out against King Cotton as the English merely switched markets. No other European player would not dare move unless the Brits. did. The fact that the Southern Government chose also to stop shipments of cotton to England pre-blockade to sort of hold 'em hostage backfired, especially in the possible monetary and goods gains that could have been made before the blockade.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />Thus I agree - its not very fair to try and rate the year 1861 as one where the North could have subdued the South. I think that many of the leaders never thought it would go as long but it was not unrealistic to imagine 1863 or even 1864 as the end point. That it went longer is a combination of many factors. But incompetance is not the only factor.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree it's not hard to picture especially '64 as the end, but if some of the more willey eyed CSA officers had their way it would have never ended. But I think blow for blow '64 was the year that sealed it. Not so much Gettysburg, as it is important and Vicksburg being more logistics wise important, but Chattanooga is key. For about 2 years I am a firm believer that Tennessee is the key to the war. If you exit Virginia, which is more of a political sideshow, the West and Tennessee is lynchpin of the war. The options avilable to bothsides in terms of immediate territory invasion from that state is immense and the river connections pinnacle. I mean examine the fact that with out Memphis, no launching point for Vicksburg. Without Chattanooga, no base of ops for Atlanta, Grant does not go East, and Thomas does not become the best defensive general of the war. For all that and more you need the victories of '62. But '64 is the year of decision and is the year it was won and lost.

<center>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/"]<b>Colonel Scott Ludwig</b>[/url]



Commanding Officer
[url="http://scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/ANV"]Army of Northern Virginia
[/url]CSA

[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/index.html"]Personal Command Tent[/url]

For the Glory of Virginia!!</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />Scott - definitely '64 was the key year but '63 with Gettysburg and Vicksburg losses were a huge morale problem for the South.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Atlanta and Petersburg were big morale dampers in the North in '64...but we all know how that turned out. [:D]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />Tennessee was definitely one of the keys to the war and as you say may have been THE key but alot of other things had to be accomplished before Tennessee would fall.

The other being the severing of the Mississippi that denies the CSA the use of the Texas ports.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ah but Tenneesee has to be secured to allow of base of operations to get to Vicksburg. So in the essence of it it still suits the point.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />One of the what-ifs of the war - had Farragut been able to take Mobile Bay sooner also plays a part of the story. Forget the Red River operation and go for Mobile Bay was one theory that was put up about a way to help shorten the war (note that they didnt say it WOULD shorten the war - like Tennessee it was one of those golden apples that would help shorten the conflict)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ah the forgotten part so the war, Red River!! [:)]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />Great Britain probably afforded herself one of her best allies later in history by NOT going to war. When WW2 broke out the US became one of her staunchest allies. A past war with England sometime around 1862 would have left an ill taste in alot of Americans mouths over the war.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is a very valid point.....

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />But these are just what-ifs. We will never know what could have been ...

LtCol. Peters, 4th Horse Artillery
3rd Cavalry Division, II Corps, AoA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ah but Bill it is what makes the world go round...it's all fun!![:D][:D]

<center>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/"]<b>Colonel Scott Ludwig</b>[/url]



Commanding Officer
[url="http://scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/ANV"]Army of Northern Virginia
[/url]CSA

[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/index.html"]Personal Command Tent[/url]

For the Glory of Virginia!!</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eireb</i>
<br />Hi Mike.

I was drawn to this post by one word in it's title - "Phony".

I'd be interested to hear your reason(s) for describing the Constitution of the Confederate States as phony. [?]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<b>
For ONE reason and ONE reason only. To stir up a few Rebs!</b>[:D][:D][:D]

It appears it worked!

[url="mtdavies@msn.com"]Major Mike Davies[/url]
4/1/XXV
<i><b>"Keystone Brigade"</b></i>
Army of the James

Hi again Mike!

Thought it was a Lure alright - so I didn't bite and launch inta a Major Defensive Rant - just nibbled a li'll to test out the Waters. [:p]

Appears to me that calling the Confederate Constitution "Phony" would be an indefensible stance . . . seein' as it holds much the same Ground as the "Real" Constitution! [:o)]

What <i>DOES</i> catch my attention tho' is - what was the "justification" in maintaining the Union. Each State held the Right to a certain degree of Autonomy and the Secession was an Expansion/Extension of these Rights. The War launched by the Union was "Unconstitutional" according to my unnerstandin' of both Constitutions.

Abe was an "Honourable" Politician . . . curious how he could attack the Southern States, when earlier in his Career, he had stated that ALL States had the RIGHT to defy the Federal Government <i><font color="red">UP TO & INCLUDING REBELLING AGAINST THAT GOVERNMENT</font id="red"></i> - should the State Legislature vote for such an Action. [:0]

Pot, Kettle and Black - you make up the well known saying! [:D]

A Case of " Absolute Power, Corrupting ABSOLUTELY - methinks! [:)]

NOW . . . <b><i><u><font color="red"></font id="red">THAT'S</u></i></b> . . . . indefensible! ! ! [^]

LoL.

Pat.

Colonel Patrick G.M.Carroll,
II Corps, Commanding.
"Spartan Southrons"
Army of Georgia,
C.S.A.

" When My Country takes it's rightful place, amongst the Nations of the World, then and only then, let My Epitaph be written. "

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eireb</i>... The War launched by the Union was "Unconstitutional" according to my unnerstandin' of both Constitutions.

Abe was an "Honourable" Politician . . . curious how he could attack the Southern States...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If I'm not mistaken it was the confederates who attacked Fort Sumter...sounds to me like the Rebs started a war and the Union was only defending itself!

<hr noshade size="1">[url="mtdavies@msn.com"]Major Mike Davies[/url]
4/1/XXV
<i><b>"Keystone Brigade"</b></i>
Army of the James

I think the legal question is whether a state had the right or not to succeed from the Union. If it did then the US should evacuate its territory including Fort Sumter within their borders which it was. If they didn't have the right to succeed then the CSA's seizing of US property was sufficient reason for war.

The interesting thing is that the Republicans never brought Jefferson Davis to trial because they were affraid that it might become a constitutional question before the Supreme Court. The Confederacy might win in court what it lost in war since the Justices probably would have upheld the right for a state that voluntarily joined the Union to voluntarily leave it. And, that would be a bit embarassing.[:D]

Col. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)

Hi again Gents! [:)]

" . . . the legal question is whether a state had the right or not to succeed from the Union. If it did then the US should evacuate its territory including Fort Sumter within their borders which it was. "

Thanks Kennon! Your post is my case in a perfect Nutshell! [:D]

And therein lies my confusion in the whole matter Mike! [:I]

True . . .the CSA fired the 1st shot - but " by appointment with due warning and regret" AND only after all diplomatic efforts had failed. [:(!]

The Union Commander had agreed to retain his Garrison at another location - but reneged on the "Deal". The CS would have been unusual in the extreme to accept the presence of a hostile Army within it's Territory . . . but, utterly beyond belief, had they accepted the presence of a hostile Army, which retained a Right of Free Movement within legitimate CS Territory.

Now . . . if both sides suscribed to their Constitutions - which differed in only a few areas . . . . BOTH SIDEs would legally recognise Secession as an inalienable right of each State.

Which has led me to conclude that the USA acted illegally and against their own Constitution.

Couple that Mike . . . with the Fact that the CS Government NEVER convened to Dissolve either Itself or the CS . . . and Ye havva a very inneresting situation, to my Outsider's viewpoint.

And that is . . . . that the Confederate States of America is STILL a Legal Entity and has been in a State of Illegal occupation by the Federal Govt. of the USA since 1865 ! ! ! [:p]

" The Land of the Free? " North of the M/D Line p'raps! [V]

Pat.


Colonel Patrick G.M.Carroll,
II Corps, Commanding.
"Spartan Southrons"
Army of Georgia,
C.S.A.

" When My Country takes it's rightful place, amongst the Nations of the World, then and only then, let My Epitaph be written. "