Too Many Chiefs...Not Enough Indians

I found Governor Brown's statement denouncing Confederate policy to be emblematic of the major problem with the Confederacy as a whole.  The combination of a week central government and strong state governments makes it extremely difficult for even the most basic of governmental duties to be accomplished, lit alone  successfully making war on another country at your technological level.  The Union and the Confederacy both needed strong central governments in order to manage the affairs of the individual states for the mutual benefit of them all as a whole.  This government could take a variety of forms, but it was a VITAL necessity to the successful persecution of a war.  There are examples of this from other eras in history:

1)  Ancient Egypt, ruled by the pharaoh, a divine king, conquered or controlled an area of territory that stretched through modern-day Sudan to the south as well as the Sinai Peninsula, parts of modern day Lebanon, Syria, and into Southern Turkey to the East.  When Egypt had internal problems and lost that strong central government, they descended into chaos and lost their empire. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Kingdom


2)  Even Rome as a republic, in times of war, the Senate would appoint a dictator with absolute authority to run the country during these times when action had to be taken quickly and with no time for the Senate to deliberate and reach a consensus.  The practice was solid and mostly successful, view the success of Roman in the Punic Wars. 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator

3)  From America's earlier history, the original documents that established the United States as an independent country from Great Britain, were the "Articles of Confederation", this document gave the new country strong state governments and a week federal government.  Its' creators feared that if they created a strong central government, then Americans would just be trading one dictatorship for another.  However, it didn't take too long (at most 12 years, but since ratification didn't take place until 3 years after passing into law by the Second Continental Congress, it probably didn't see much actual use) before another governing document was passed, at the urging of such luminaries as George Washington, who felt that the "Articles" "lacked the necessary provisions for a sufficiently effective government. There was no president or executive agencies or judiciary. There was no tax base. There was no way to pay off state and national debts from the war years."  Thus our Constitution was born, which firmly placed the Federal government in overall control of the country, with the State governments playing supporting roles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_confederation

Sorry there, I got off on a historical tangent there.  But though many strong central governments throughout history have equated to monarchies or dictatorships, that does not need to always be the case.  Unfortunately, Southerners of the 1860s tended to hold this erroneous viewpoint, seeing Lincoln as an American Catiline, someone attempting to usurp the rightful governmental order.  But what the Southerners also failed to realize was that though some powers of the individual states were invariably lost to the federal government, as a WHOLE country they gained larger abilities (more men to muster for war, a larger population to pull from, more tax money with which to fund civic improvements and technological advancements) which made the whole country greater and more powerful as a result, then each individual state could ever be on its' own.  The confederacy was a case of too many chiefs and not enough Indians.


I find it pretty interesting that Governor Brown is complaining about the excesses of the military in matters of taking control away from the civilian authorities (I presume that he was NOT a fan of the draft also) when he was a master of hording the supplies that his state accumulated and insuring that they went only to Georgian soldiers, content to let soldiers from other states starve and freeze to death.  If the state governments and the Confederate Constitution tie the federal government's hands from acting in the country's best interest, then it is up to the military to do so.  The states are mostly concerned with the well-fare of their own constituents and have lost sight of the wider goal.....independence for them all.  For the only way a country's military can successfully defend the entire country is to have the backing of the entire country regardless of where the individual soldiers hale from.  Since the federal government has no state support, the states have no control outside their own borders, who is left to maintain law and order...the military.  Chaotic situation in the country and no firm governmental control in time of war is what leads to military dictatorships.  Perhaps Governor Brown is right to fear military despotism.  If so, then maybe that would have been the best thing for the Confederacy, forced unity fight have brought them success in their war for independence.