Download Davis Model United Nations Conference 2015

Davis Model United Nations
Conference 2015
Joint Historical Crisis Simulation
American Civil War - Union
Head Chair: Hannah Neil
Crisis Director: David Robinson
Letter From the Head Chair:
Dear Delegates,
I greet you now in desperate urgency. Our beloved country needs us now more than ever.
It is time for us to stand up for what we believe in: freedom from slavery, and one country under
God. We must show strength to the American people, whose country is terribly divided. Yet this
divide is not irreparable; by showing all American citizens, black and white alike, that abolished
slavery in a strong Union is right and necessary, we can unite the country again.
My name is Hannah Neil, and I will be your head chair for the Union side of the Civil
War Committee. This is my fourth year in MUN, and somewhere around my seventeenth or
eighteenth conference. Earlier this year, I was the Secretary General for UC Davis’s first
collegiate circuit-level conference, AggieMUN. Now, I am honored to be your head chair and
President. When not debating international treaties and history through Model UN, I ride horses,
bake cupcakes, and nerd out over politics-focused shows like House of Cards and Parks and
Recreation (I’m like 40% Leslie, 55% April, with a smidge of Andy in there).
As head chair for your committee, I will be taking on the role as Abraham Lincoln. I will
need your help both individually and as a committee to help win this war. We need to band
together to beat the South, reunite the country, and reestablish ourselves as the Greatest
Democracy on Earth. As a chair, I appreciate diplomacy and strong leadership most—while I
recognize that some parts of Model UN are a competition, I do not believe that competitive drive
should overpower the entire founding principles (cooperation, collective security, etc) of the
United Nations. That being said, feel free to harness that competitive drive and use it against the
Confederacy committee, and their head chair (and my good friend), Laurel Sudduth/Jefferson
Davis!
Looking forward to winning this war with you,
Hannah Neil
[email protected]
Introduction to the Committee
Fought from 1861 to 1865, the American Civil War was a reflection of differing
development and state versus federal interest. Less than 100 years old, the United States of
America was still a new democracy, and all eyes were watching to see if this experiment in
democracy would be successful. Yet to call the states “united” was good public relations rather
than reality. While united by a federal government, the states varied drastically in interest,
culture, industry, and population, resulting in tensions from the very beginning. This bloody war
cost 625,000 lives in battle, the largest number in a Western country between the Napoleonic
Wars and World War I. While the northern Union government ultimately prevailed, this
historical crisis simulation allows delegates to rewrite history. Will the North be successful and
reunite the country? Or will the Confederate States secede successfully and create their own
country?1
Pre-War America
Conflict from the Start
The conflict between Unionism and Confederism began at the country’s founding.
Initially bound together with the Articles of the Confederation, the thirteen states acted as mostly
independent territories united by a similar goal. Yet the Articles of Confederation failed on three
fronts. Economically, the Confederation was a failure because the Continental Congress did not
have the power to raise taxes. Second, interstate commerce was difficult. Each state printed its
own currency, and without regulation, this currency suffered from great inflation. Additionally,
the states imposed interstate tariffs upon each other. Lastly, national security was still a great
1
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/overview.html
matter of concern, but the Continental Congress did not hold the authority to create a navy2.
Because of these failures, a new Constitution was necessary. At the Constitutional Convention in
Philadelphia in 1787, 55 delegates from the thirteen states met to debate and write a constitution.
To get the Constitution to pass through the Convention, several compromises had to be made.
One contentious issue, greatly important for the lead up to the Civil War, was the issue of
representation. The slave-owning states wanted their slaves to be counted in their population as
to achieve greater representation in the lower chamber. Yet the non-slave states argued that
because the slaves were considered property, not people, they should not count. The famous
3/5ths Compromise was reached instead, where each slave counted as 3/5ths of a person.
To successfully enforce this Constitution, the states needed to adopt and ratify it. This
was not an easy task. The Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist debates published as a series of essays in
newspapers in the original thirteen states showcased the initial struggle well. The Federalists,
who were in favor of the constitution, believed in a united federal government arching over the
states3. In contrast, the Anti-Federalist pointed out flaws and weaknesses of the federal plan such
as potential tyranny of government. While some of these weaknesses were later addressed with
the Bill of Rights, other weaknesses were still to come to head. The Constitution was eventually
adopted, but the concerns over an overarching federal government were not calmed4.
Difference in State Ideology
The Civil War is framed as a war about slavery, with economics and culture surrounding
slavery being an important focus. Union-favoring states and Confederate states developed
differently economically. Southern states like Virginia thrived on plantation farming, mostly
2
Political Science 150: Judicial Politics, Professor Gates. UC Davis, Fall 2014
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/federalist-papers
4
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/anti-federalist-papers)
3
done by slave labor. Cash crops like tobacco and cotton were popular, grown from the start and
then exported north. In comparison, Northern states were industry based, and the beginnings of
the industrial revolution were shaping their economies. Economic policy favored the industrial
states rather than the agricultural states.
At the same time, the morality of slavery was being questioned. As early as 1807,
Thomas Jefferson signed The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves, prohibiting any new slaves
from being brought into the U.S.5 Throughout the world, slavery was being abolished. Britain
abolished slavery in the British Empire beginning in 1834. In 1848, post-Revolutionary France
also outlawed slavery. Brazil ended its participation in the transatlantic slave trade by passing the
Eusébio de Queirós Law in 18506. Prominent U.S. figures were also part of the international
conversation, such as Susan B. Anthony and President John Quincy Adams.
However, the main contention between the North and the South regarding slavery was the
idea of state rights. The South believed in strong private property rights. Slaves were considered
property in the US, and slave owners wanted the right to take their “property” anywhere within
the US and not have them taken away7. In contrast, the North viewed the right to reject or outlaw
slavery as their own states’ right.
Slavery and Political Tensions
Slavery was a growing political tension throughout the 1800s. The main debate was
between whether the morals of slavery went against the Republican form of government or if
slavery was a state-property right protected by the Constitution. The strategy of anti-slavery
forces was containment, but the slave states felt this infringed upon their Constitutional rights.
5
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves.html
https://www.freetheslaves.net/SlaveryinHistory
7
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/04/12/135353655/slavery-not-states-rights-was-civil-wars-cause.
6
These tensions were outwardly political featuring representation, because as long as there were
equal numbers of slave states and free states, neither side could dominate the other in Congress.
The divide between Northern and Southern economics also caused huge tensions, coming
to a head in 1832 with the Nullification Crisis, three decades before the Civil War. Tariff acts
passed in the early 1800s benefited the economy of the North while hurting the economy of the
South. South Carolina passed a nullification of the Tariff of 1832, threatening to secede if the
federal government attempted to gather the tariffs. Viewing this as treason, President Jackson,
supported by Congress, reinforced the region with ships to the Charleston Harbor. After some
compromise and the Tariff of 1833 which lowered tariffs to where they were in 1816, South
Carolina agreed to remove their nullification measure. While South Carolina’s nullification and
secession threat was unsuccessful, it showed that the threat of secession was a powerful
bargaining chip with the federal government8.
As more territories were settled in the west, the discussion around slavery dominated the
national conversation. Northern representatives wanted the
settled territories to become free states, but the South and
some settlers wanted the territories to be slave states. One
of the most famous compromises between the North and the
South regarding slavery was the Missouri Compromise.
Missouri petitioned to join the federal government as a
slave state in 1819. Debate in Congress about this was fierce. The Compromise resulted in
Missouri being admitted as a slave state in 1820, but allowed Maine to split off from
Massachusetts and banned slavery north of the 30º36 parallel9.
8
9
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h333.html
http://www.ushistory.org/us/23c.asp
Then, in 1845, Texas was admitted to the union as a slave state, making 15 out of the 28
states slave states. As a result, Iowa and Wisconsin were admitted in 1846 and 1848 respectively,
as free states to balance representation10. These disputes about slavery and slave-versus-free
states were contentious not only along geographical lines but also within political parties. The
disputes about slavery effectively ended the Whig and Know Nothing political parties, and
eventually split the Democratic Party11.
The Compromise of 1850 temporarily assuaged tensions between the North and South. In
1849, California requested to enter the union as a free state, potentially upsetting the balance
between free and slave states. Introduced by Senator Henry Clay and passed in the latter half of
1950 the Compromise of 1950 made several huge changes to the American political landscape.
The slave trade in Washington D.C. was abolished, California was accepted as a free state,
territorial governments were established in New Mexico and Utah, and Arizona and Nevada
were recognized as territories without mention of slavery12.The Compromise also amended the
Fugitive Slave Act to balance out for admitting California as a free state. The new amendment on
the Fugitive Slave Act required citizens to assist in the arrest and recovery of fugitive slaves,
denied the slaves a right to jury trial, made the process easier for slave owners to file claims for
fugitive slaves, and increased the amount of federal officers looking for fugitive slave. In
consequence, 20,000 blacks moved to Canada over the next ten years. While imperfect, and
angering both sides of the slavery debate, the Compromise looked promising to settle differences
in slavery politics13.
10
http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist5/caladmit.html).
Tyler Anbinder. Nativism and Slavery: The Northern Know Nothings and the politics of the 1850s (1992))
12
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Compromise1850.html
13
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html
11
Tensions Building
Bleeding Kansas
Despite the Compromise of 1850, tensions continued to build in the early 1850s in
Congress between slave and non-slave states. Finally, it erupted with Bleeding Kansas. In
November of 1953, Augustus Dodge from Iowa introduced a bill to the senate to organize the
territory of Nebraska, including the region that would later become Kansas. This bill was then
introduced to the Committee of Territories, chaired by Stephen Douglas of Illinois. Douglas was
a firm believer in “popular sovereignty,” which allowed the settlers of new territories the
independent decision of allowing or forbidding slavery. Douglas was also a huge proponent of
Manifest Destiny. Part of carrying out Manifest Destiny was the transcontinental railroad, and
Douglas wanted a terminal in Chicago - a terminal that would be impossible without
organization of the Nebraska territory. To pass the bill, Douglas had to garner the votes of
Southerners. His compromise was to suggest that Nebraska and Kansas could decide on slavery
through popular sovereignty. However, this would overturn the Missouri Compromise, which
banned slavery north of the 30º36 parallel. Even with popular sovereignty, Nebraska was far
enough north that its settlers would clearly vote to enter as a free state. Kansas, however, was
more contentious. Despite objections, Douglas passed the bill through both houses of Congress,
and it entered into law in May of 1854.
The North and South reacted immediately. The New England Emigrant Aid Company,
organized by Eli Thayer, sent 1,500 anti-slavery settlers into the Kansas territory by the summer
of 1855. When exaggerated rumors reached the South that the Northerners were descending into
Kansas, “thousands of armed Southerners, mostly from Missouri, poured over the line to vote for
a proslavery congressional delegate14.” Despite only half the ballots being cast by registered
voters, the proslavery forces won the election. These Southerners came to be called the Border
Ruffians, and they once again poured into Kansas in March of 1855 for the election to choose
members of the territorial legislature. The proslavery forces won once again.
The new, pro-slavery territorial legislature voted and enacted laws incorporating the
Missouri slave code. This slave code held
harsh penalties for anyone who even spoke
up against slavery, and encouraged the death
penalty for anyone helping fugitive slaves. In
an outraged response, the Northerners created
their own “Free State” legislature in the city
of Topeka. However, most of the original
settlers (Free Settlers) in Kansas were not partisan with the slavery movement, and wanted to
live in the territory in peace. They were part of a movement called the Free Soil, which called for
free territory for white people. 73% of the Free Settlers voted to outlaw black people all together,
banning both free and enslaved black Americans from the territory. Peaceful “white” territory
was not what they received, however, as violence erupted in Kansas.
In 1856, the proslavery capital of Kansas was moved to the town of Lecompton.
Lecompton was only 12 miles away from Lawrence, which was a large Free State city. In April
of 1856, a congressional investigation found that the elections of 1855 were fraudulent. The
investigating committee announced that the Free State government represented majority will.
The federal government did not follow the committee’s recommendations, and instead
recognized the proslavery forces as the legitimate government. On May 21, 1856, proslavery
14
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2952.html
men burned the Free State hotel and ransacked homes and businesses. In retaliation, a group of
abolitionist men brutally killed five proslavery men. The violence continued, and even spread to
Congress itself, when a Congressman attacked a senator with his cane. The violence peaked with
the Marias de Cynges massacre where Border Ruffians killed five Free State men15. Before the
new governor, John Geary, arrived in September of 1856 to restore order, 55 people died in the
violence now known as “Bleeding Kansas.” After four conventions to draft a constitution for
Kansas to apply for statehood, Kansas finally applied for admittance to the Union as a free state.
However, the Senate strongly opposed the free state admission, and Kansas was not admitted to
the Union until after the Confederate states seceded.
Dred Scott, the Freeport Doctrine, and Their Repercussions
In 1857, the now-infamous Dred Scott vs. Sanford case was decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States. Dred Scott was a slave who lived in Illinois and Wisconsin, which
was a free state and free territory respectively, before moving back to Missouri. Scott first went
to trial to sue for his freedom in 1847 while in the South, but not while he was in the free states16.
After ten years of appeals, the Supreme Court lead by Chief Justice Roger Taney, declared that
Scott and all blacks were not, and could not become citizens of the United States. In writing the
majority opinion, Taney wrote that the language in the Constitution “all men are created equal,”
does not apply to blacks because “the enslaved African race were not intended to be included17”
The infamous Supreme Court case the decisions of Dred Scott vs. Sanford had serious
repercussions. Besides declaring that all blacks in the country did not have citizenship and
therefore did not have any rights, Taney’s majority opinion also ruled the Missouri Compromise
unconstitutional, overturning one of the most instrumental tools to balance slavery vs. free state
15
http://www.fstribune.com/story/1315443.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html
17
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1826-1850/dred-scott-case/chief-justice-taney.php
16
representation18. This decision predictably outraged Northerners but was well-received in the
South. Arguably, the Northern outrage influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the
Republican Party19.
The decision of the Dred Scott case led to many political debates attempting to find a
compromise between the Dred Scott decision and democracy. Most famous were the LincolnDouglas debates between Illinois-senate hopefuls Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, the
Senator who chaired the Committee of Territories while the Nebraska/Kansas territories were
discussed. Douglas, a Democrat, was still a major proponent of popular sovereignty. Lincoln,
vying for the seat as a Republican, pointed out that Douglas’s opinion contradicts the Dred Scott
decision. In what became known as the Freeport Doctrine, Douglas outlined his position that
whatever the Supreme Court decided was not as important as the actions of citizens20. According
to Douglas, slavery could legally be barred from the territories if the territorial legislatures
refused to enact the legal framework and support the enforcement officials necessary to allow
slavery as an institution. In contrast, Lincoln repeated his stance that “a house divided could not
stand.”
Douglas won reelection, but his statements during the debates came at a cost. While he
retained his seat, many Southern Democrats felt betrayed by the Freeport Doctrine. The issue of
slavery was contentious for Democrats, and eventually split the party21.
Harper’s Ferry
18
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html
20
http://www.ushistory.org/us/32b.asp
21
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h241.html
19
Outside of the political arena, slavery was a quarrelsome issue for citizens as well. Both
pro- and anti-slavery movements among citizens were increasing. One famous anti-slavery act
that garnered national attention was John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, West Virginia, in
October of 1859. Abolitionist John Brown and a group of his supporters kidnapped notable
citizens and “seized the federal armory and arsenal22,” in the hopes that local slaves would join
in the raid. If the raid was successful, the weapons could be provided to other freedom fighters.
However, the raid was unsuccessful. Marines lead by Colonel Robert E. Lee ended the raid,
capturing Brown. After a quick trial, Brown was hanged for treason against the state of Virginia
slave insurrection, and murder, in December of 1859.
While the raid was unsuccessful, it was taken seriously by both abolitionists and the proslavery movement. The abolition movement had previously been dominated by pacifists, but this
sensational act of violence awakened a deeper anger in the movement, which began to consider
militancy. In the South, the raid heightened the fear of slave uprisings. Some southerners also
held fears that the execution of John Brown would result in his and the other raider’s
martyrdom23.
1860 Presidential Election
The presidential election of 1860 was highly factious not only for the country but for
political parties as well. The Democrats, meeting in Charleston in April of 1860, were divided
with support for Senator Stephen Douglas. Northern Democrats believed that Douglas was the
party’s best chance for defeating the Republicans, but the Southern Democrats still felt betrayed
by Douglas’s Freeport Doctrine which advocated for popular sovereignty. The convention ended
with Northern Democrats leaving angrily without the party choosing a candidate. Instead, six
22
23
http://www.civilwar.org/150th-anniversary/john-browns-harpers-ferry.html
http://www.wvculture.org/history/journal_wvh/wvh34-1.html
weeks later the Northern Democrats, now a party simply called the Democrats, chose Douglas.
At the same time, the newly formed “Southern Democrats” nominated the then-Vice President,
John Breckenridge24. Breckenridge, the youngest Vice President of all time, campaigned on a
pro-slavery platform. He also advocated maintaining the Union, despite the murmurs of
secession in the South25.
At their convention in May, the Republicans recognized the necessity to carry the North
to win the Electoral College. New Jersey, Illinois, Indiana, and Pennsylvania were the “swing
states” of the time, whose election predictions were uncertain. Also recognizing the potentially
advantageous split in Democrat party, Republicans chose to nominate Abraham Lincoln.
A fourth candidate, John Bell from Tennessee, was selected to represent the so-called
Constitutional Union Party. Bell was a wealthy slaveholder. The Constitutional Union Party
created a party platform based on taking no stand on divisive issues, instead wanting to maintain
“a more perfect union…. [and] insure domestic stability26.”
Much to the dismay of the Southern States, Lincoln won the election with 39.3% of the
popular vote, and 180 electoral votes. Lincoln carried the vote without winning any Southern
states. Douglas came in second, winning 29.5% of the popular vote, but only completely winning
the state of Missouri, earning 12 electoral votes. Winning 72 electoral votes but only 18.1% of
the popular vote was Breckinridge. 39 electoral votes and 12.6% of the popular vote went to
Bell27.
24
http://www.ushistory.org/us/32d.asp
http://www.history.com/topics/john-c-breckinridge
26
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29571).
27
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1860
25
Results of the 1860 election by state28
(Red: Lincoln, Blue: Breckinridge, Green: Douglas, Yellow: Bell)
While Lincoln won the election, this did not mean the slavery debate had reached an end.
In fact, many embroiled Southern leaders threatened to secede if Lincoln was elected.
Assassinations were attempted and thwarted. Lincoln’s inaugural address in March 4th, 1861
addressed the turmoil in the nation, saying29:
"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of
civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves
the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall
have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend' it. We are not enemies, but friends.
We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break, our bonds of
affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to
every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union
when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
This grand speech, worthy of mention even 154 years later, was not enough. The South had
already decided to secede.
Placating Attempts:
Crittenden Compromise
28
29
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1860
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/07/23/abraham-lincoln-and-the-election-of-1860
In December of 1860, Senator John Crittenden (Kentucky, Whig Party) proposed six
Constitutional Amendments and four resolutions in an attempt to appease the Southern states.
The Amendments read as follows30:
1. Slavery would be prohibited in all territory of the United States "now held, or hereafter
acquired," north of latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes. In territory south of this line, slavery
was "hereby recognized" and could not be interfered with by Congress. Further, property
in slaves was to be "protected by all the departments of the territorial government during
its continuance." States would be admitted to the Union from any territory with or
without slavery as their constitutions provided.
2. Congress was forbidden to abolish slavery in places under its jurisdiction within a slave
state, such as a military post.
3. Congress could not abolish slavery in the District of Columbia so long as it existed in the
adjoining states of Virginia and Maryland, and without the consent of the District's
inhabitants. Compensation would be given to owners who refused consent to abolition.
4. Congress could not prohibit or interfere with the interstate slave trade.
5. Congress would provide full compensation to owners of rescued fugitive slaves.
Congress was empowered to sue the county in which obstruction to the fugitive slave
laws took place to recover payment; the county, in turn, could sue "the wrong doers or
rescuers" who prevented the return of the fugitive.
6. No future amendment of the Constitution could change these amendments, or authorize
or empower Congress to interfere with slavery within any slave state.
The resolutions to follow were:
1. That fugitive slave laws were constitutional and should be faithfully observed and
executed.
2. That all state laws which impeded the operation of fugitive slave laws, the so-called
"Personal Liberty laws," were unconstitutional and should be repealed.
30
http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/CrittendenComp.html
3. That the Fugitive Slave act of 1850 should be modified (and rendered less objectionable
to the North) by equalizing the fee schedule for returning or releasing alleged fugitives,
and limiting the powers of marshals to summon citizens to aid in their capture.
4. That laws for the suppression of the African slave trade should be effectively and
thoroughly executed.
Despite such concessions to the South, it was not enough to placate the secessionist
movement. Most Republicans agreed with President-elect Lincoln and did not support the
Compromise31.
The Corwin Amendment
As the secessionist movement grew post-election, Congress formed one last-ditch effort
to prevent secession. In an attempt to placate the South, Congress passed the Corwin
Amendment in order to amend the Constitution. The Amendment read as follows:
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power
to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of
persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
It passed through Congress with the two thirds majority required for a Constitutional
Amendment, and then was sent out to the states for ratification, only hours before President
Lincoln’s inauguration in March 1861. The Amendment served three purposes: first to protect
slavery by giving the states individual power to protect “domestic institutions;” second to bar
Congress from the power to abolish or interfere with slavery; and third making this amendment
“unamendable32.” However, despite President Lincoln himself acknowledging the states’ right to
31
32
http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/crittenden-compromise
http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2013/02/18/the-other-13th-richard-albert
ratification, the Amendment was not enough. It did not entice the secessionists to stay in the
Union, and it did not reach ratification33.
The Confederacy
After Lincoln’s election, November 1860, the South feared the worst of the new Northern
president seeing his opposition to slavery as an attack on their livelihoods, rights as citizens, and
states34. Because of this, Southern states started to secede. South Carolina was the first state to
secede in December 1860. By February 1861 a total of seven states seceded from the Union:
South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. President James
Buchanan, the sitting president at the time, called these states actions illegal under the
constitution and distasteful. The Southern states disagreed with this premise. The Southern states
did not believe they needed to declare independence from the Union, but rather only needed to
declare secession because they joined the Union as sovereign states and therefore had the right to
withdraw at any time. On February 9th, 1861, the seven newly seceded states formed the
Confederate States of America, the provisional government of the Confederate States of
America, and appointed Jefferson Davis as their president until such time elections could be
arranged.
Upon leaving, each state also withdrew their representatives in Congress. This left both
houses of Congress and the executive office in the hands of the Republican Party. As soon as the
Southern Democratic Senators resigned, Congress immediately passed multiple of bills they
originally were unable to pass because of the Southern Democrats: Morrill Tariff, Homestead
Act, Pacific Rail Act, National Bank Act, Revenue Act 1861 (which was first installation of an
income tax and helped pay for the war). The Southern Democrats virulently opposed all of these
33
34
http://philmagness.com/?page_id=398
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1860
acts. They believed the acts to be harmful for the south while unilaterally benefitting the North,
this was unacceptable.
On 4 March 1861, Lincoln was sworn in as President of the United States of America 35.
Confederates sent an envoy to Lincoln to negotiate a peace treaty, offering to pay for all federal
land that was currently in the Confederacy. Lincoln, appalled by the conditions set forth before
him, refused all of them. He believed that in making any treaty or agreement with the
Confederacy it would establish their sovereignty as a separate country. To make a treaty with the
Confederacy would essentially legitimize the state’s right to succeed from the Union. This was
unacceptable in the mind of the Union, which wholeheartedly believed the future of “one
country, under God36.” In response to Lincoln’s refusal negotiation, the Confederacy seized all
federal lands within their territory. This included all forts and munitions depots and later sparked
the first battle of the Civil War.
35
36
http://www.civilwar.si.edu/timeline.html
http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm
The Beginning of War
Fort Sumter was a federal run fort in South Carolina. The troops in the fort were neither from the
South nor loyal to the South but instead reported to and remained loyal to the Union. After
Lincoln’s inauguration, Fort Sumter reported having only 6 weeks of provisions left. They either
needed to be given more provisions or evacuated in that time frame. Lincoln needed to decide
how to handle the delicate situation after declaring in his inauguration speech the North’s
commitment to not starting war with the Confederacy. However he knew the Confederates would
not let the North restock Fort Sumter because of its important strategic positions, and evacuation
of the troops was also unlikely to be allowed. The Confederates on the other hand, could not
decide who had the right to attack the fort, if they choose to at all. North Carolina, as the state
who held the base, believed they had the sole right to attack, while the Confederates believed
they did considering it was a federal base. On April 11, after a month of indecision on both sides,
the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter. After a full day of siege Fort Sumter surrendered. There
Depicted Left:
Map of Fort Sumter1
were no casualties, and the soldiers were allowed to return to the North37. Despite the lack of
bloodshed, this battle marked the start of the war.
Three days later Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to volunteer for ninety days, imposed
martial law, suspended habeas corpus in all of the Union, and called for the first blockade of the
Confederacy in order to separate them from Europe and other trading partners. After Lincoln’s
call to arms, the volunteers poured out onto the streets. They had more men than they could train,
cloth, or house and turned many down. These actions prompted Virginia, Arkansas, North
Carolina and Tennessee to secede from the Union. After the four new states joined, in May, the
Confederates declared their capital to be Richmond, Virginia.
June 3rd marked the first battle after Fort Sumter. It was a small skirmish between the
Confederates and Union. While it was not very consequential in the overall war, it marked the
beginning of the many high-casualty small skirmishes. Seven days later, the first large land battle
occurred in Virginia at the Battle of Big Bethel. Soon after, at the Wheeling Convention, West
Virginia decided to and later voted on a referendum to split from Virginia and remain with the
Union38. 32 percent of the people showed up to vote, of those 96 percent of voted to split from
Virginia and remain loyal to the Union in October 1861.
After the Battle of Big Bethel, many consecutive battles were fought between June 1861
and January 1862 such as the Battle of Bull Run, Battle of Wilson Creek, and Battle of Ball’s
Bluff. The Battle of the Coastline began with the Confederates losing the Fort Hatteras of North
Carolina. This battle marked the beginning of the North’s attempt to close off the South’s ability
to trade with other nations, in an embargo. The success of this policy was first seen when the
37
38
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/overview.html
http://www.nps.gov/gett/historyculture/civil-war-timeline.htm
Union stopped the Confederacy from sending a foreign aid advisors, James Mason and John
Slidell to Britain. This in turn enraged both Britain and the Confederacy39.
Where We Begin
Despite the Union’s success at Fort Hatteras, the Confederates are currently pushing
northward and all attempts by the Union have been unable to repel them. However the Union has
successfully created a blockade of the South unhindered by Confederate resistance on the sea,
because of their limited naval capacity. We will be starting committee on January 2nd 1862. Will
the Confederacy be able to hold against the Union ensuring the future existence of state’s rights,
slavery, and the culture of the south? Or will the North again triumph in maintaining the Union
as a whole, imposing the federal laws over the states’ rights, abolishing slavery, and forever
changing Southern culture?
Weaponry
The Civil War was a chaotic time in American history. It dramatically changed the
United States not only socially and politically, but also militarily. New kinds of weapons
emerged that dramatically changed the face of war forever. Some of the major breakthroughs in
warfare were the following:
The Rifle:
Before the Civil War, muskets were the main weapon for infantrymen. The range,
accuracy, and reload time of these muskets made them slow and ineffective as a reliable weapon.
During the Civil War, rifles were first used extensively on the battlefield. These weapons had a
rifling inside the barrel which made them far more accurate than their musket counterparts. In
39
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-civilwar/5118
addition, repeating rifles were also introduced, which cut down the reload speed to only a few
seconds. During the Civil War, these repeating rifles were readily available to Northern troops,
but not to Southern ones as weapons factories with the materials and knowledge to produce such
weapons were sparse.
Ironclads and Submarines
Arguably the most dramatic leap forward in technology of the Civil War occurred in the
naval theater of the war. Wooden-cast, sail ships were no longer the dominant force of the seas.
This role was stolen from them by the heavy-set ironclads. These ironclads dominated the open
seas and rivers during the Civil War and were relatively unsinkable. Usually the only way to
destroy and ironclad was with another ironclad. Both sides extensively used ironclads as
blockade vessels, open sea vessels, river vessels, and torpedo vessels - the most famous ironclads
being the Southern CSS Virginia and the Northern USS Monitor. In addition to ironclads, the
Civil war saw the introduction of a revolutionary new sea vessel – the submarine. Often small,
slow, and dangerous to operate, these vessels still represented a massive leap forward in naval
technology
Balloons
Some of the most overlooked advancements in warfare during the Civil War were not
weapons. Most were technologies that supported and aided troops and commanders in battle.
Balloons were some of the most innovative advancements during the Civil War. Both the North
and South utilized hydrogen-filled passenger balloons to float above the enemy and spy on them.
These spies would relay important information regarding the position and strength of the enemy
through telegraph lines.
The Telegraph
Essential to any battlefield commander was up-to-date information on his troops and the
battlefield. The telegraph created instantaneous communication between battlefield officers and
their commanders. Abraham Lincoln was the first president in history to be able to directly
communicate with his generals on the front line through the telegraph, allowing him to receive
updates, monitor reports, and issue orders. The North had the advantage over the South here as
well with nearly 4,000 miles of telegraph lines being established.
The Railroad
More important than any advanced weapon, the railroad served as the greatest
technological leap in the Civil War. Railroads were used to move large numbers of troops and
supplies over long distances in a relatively short amount of time. Never before had America
fought a war in which such a technology was used so extensively. During the Civil War, the
North had the advantage when it came to railroads, containing more than 22,000 miles of
railroad track compared to only 9,000 miles in the South. In addition, almost all of the
locomotive and track factories were located in the North, and all tracks in the North were in a
standardized gauge – meaning any train car could ride on any track. In the South, locomotive and
track factories were limited and tracks were standardized, so troops and supplies often had to
inefficiently change trains midway.
Other Pertinent Information
Map: Division Between Union and Confederate States40
40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBr3QeVPv2M
Timeline of the Confederacy of the United States from Establishment to Committee Start
Date
1860

1861






















Dec. 20 – South Carolina secedes
Jan. 9 – Mississippi secedes
Jan. 10 – Florida secedes
Jan. 11 – Alabama secedes
Jan. 19 – Georgia secedes
Jan. 26 – Louisiana secedes
Jan. 29 – Kansas admitted to Union
Feb. 1 – Texas secedes
Feb. 8 – Confederate States of America formed (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, South Carolina)
Mar. 2 – Texas joins Confederacy
Apr. 12 – Battle of Fort Sumter, American Civil War begins
Apr. 17 – Virginia secedes
May 6 – Arkansas secedes
May 7 – Tennessee secedes, Virginia joins Confederacy
May 18 – Arkansas joins Confederacy
May 20 – North Carolina secedes
May 21 – North Carolina joins Confederacy
July 2 – Tennessee joins Confederacy
Aug. 1 – Confederacy creates Arizona Territory
Oct. 31 – Missouri secedes
Nov. 20 – Kentucky secedes
Nov. 28 – Missouri joins Confederacy, but never under CSA control
Dec. 10 – Kentucky joins Confederacy, but never under CSA control
Union Committee Character List:














President Abraham Lincoln - Chair
Vice President Hannibal Holmes - Vice Chair
Secretary of State – William H. Seward
o Represents the Union internationally
o Contacts other international figures
o Crafts Union foreign policy
Secretary of War – Edwin M. Stanton
o Supervises the military of the Union as a whole
o Coordinates strategy with Union military commanders
o Represents the Union Army internationally
Secretary of Interior – John P. Usher
o Regulates policing of the Union
o Manages internal security of the Union
o Supervises the state governments of the Union
Secretary of the Treasury – Salmon P. Chase
o Oversees the Union’s finances, and funds government and military projects
o Manages and checks the Union’s budget
o Monitors the international economy in relation to the Union
Secretary of the Navy – Gideon Welles
o Oversees all naval forces of the Union
o Oversees the Union blockade of the Confederacy
o Represents the Union Navy internationally
Attorney General – Edward Bates
o Oversees the legality of all passed laws in the Union
o Unilaterally oversees investigations as they pertain to the president’s cabinet
Speaker of the House of Representatives – Galusha A. Grow
o Communicates between president’s cabinet and the House
General-in-Chief – Major General Henry W. Halleck
o Works with the Secretary of War to formulate military strategies
o Oversees all Union Army forces
Commander of the Army of West Tennessee – Major General Ulysses S. Grant
o Unilaterally controls the Army of West Tennessee
o Unilaterally conducts military operations
Commander of the Army of the Potomac – Major General Joseph Hooker
o Unilaterally controls the Army of the Potomac
o Unilaterally conducts military operations
Commander of the Army of the Gulf – Major General Nathaniel P. Bank
o Unilaterally controls the Army of the Gulf
o Unilaterally conducts military operations
Commander of the Army of the Ohio – Major General Ambrose Burnsides
o Unilaterally controls the Army of the Ohio
o Unilaterally conducts military operations
Confederacy Committee Character List:













President Jefferson Davis - Head Chair
Vice President Alexander Stephens - Vice Chair
Secretary of State – Judah P. Benjamin
o Represents the Confederacy internationally
o Contacts other international figures
o Crafts Confederacy foreign policy
Secretary of War – James A. Seddon
o Supervises the military of the Confederacy as a whole
o Coordinates strategy with Confederate military commanders
o Represents the Confederate Army internationally
Secretary of the Treasury – Christopher Memminger
o Oversees the Confederacy’s finances and funds government and military projects
o Manages and checks the Confederacy’s budget
o Monitors the international economy in relation to the Confederacy
Secretary of the Navy – Stephan R. Mallory
o Oversees all naval forces of the Confederacy
o Oversees strategy to break the Union blockade
Attorney General – Thomas H. Watts
o Oversees the legality of all passed laws in the Union
o Unilaterally oversees investigations as they pertain to the president’s cabinet
Speaker of the Confederate States House of Representatives – Thomas S. Bocock
o Communicates between president’s cabinet and the House
Commander of the Army of Northern Virginia – General Robert E. Lee
o Unilaterally controls the Army of Northern Virginia
o Unilaterally conducts military operations
Commander of the Army of Mississippi – Lt. General John C. Pemberton
o Unilaterally controls the Army of Mississippi
o Unilaterally conducts military operations
Commander of the Army of Tennessee – General Braxton Bragg
o Unilaterally controls the Army of Tennessee
o Unilaterally conducts military operations
Commander of the Army of the Trans-Mississippi – T.H. Holms
o Unilaterally controls the Army of the Trans-Mississippi
o Unilaterally conducts military operations
Commander of the Confederate States Marine Corps – Colonel-Commandant Lloyd J.
Beall
o Oversees the Confederate States Marine Corps