Author Topic: Could the South have won?  (Read 19175 times)

Offline BILLY Defiant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4668
  • Gender: Male
  • In harms way of the furies at a reasonable price
Could the South have won?
« on: February 11, 2012, 07:42:01 PM »
What were the tactical errors that contributed to a Southern Defeat?

I say Lee's decision to fight an offensive war in the North and the debacle of Gettysburg.

Billy
Evil operates best when it is disguised for what it truly is.

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22221
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2012, 07:44:18 PM »
I have wondered if the South had used long bows if that would have been an advantage...

Offline BILLY Defiant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4668
  • Gender: Male
  • In harms way of the furies at a reasonable price
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2012, 07:59:42 PM »
Possibly, a bow in the hands of a trained man can fire much more rapidly than a musket, plus you could arc them over a barricade or trench which was used in the war.


Billy
Evil operates best when it is disguised for what it truly is.

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2012, 08:01:17 PM »
What were the tactical errors that contributed to a Southern Defeat?

I say Lee's decision to fight an offensive war in the North and the debacle of Gettysburg.

Billy

The battle of Gettysburg was definitely a turning point. I believe it was mostly due to the superior manufacturing capacity of the North and the basic unlimited manpower. The South also waited far too long to enlist Blacks into the army.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Offline walkstall

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24645
  • Gender: Male
  • WYSIWYG
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2012, 08:48:10 PM »
The battle of Gettysburg was definitely a turning point. I believe it was mostly due to the superior manufacturing capacity of the North and the basic unlimited manpower. The South also waited far too long to enlist Blacks into the army.

Hmmm....would that be enlist Blacks or draft Blacks into there Army.  It was said that between 60000 and 93000 Blacks served the Confederacy in some capacity.
As part of my blood line is of the Western Cherokee descent I am just asking. 
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession.  I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.  ~ Ronald Reagan ~

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2012, 09:00:04 PM »

Hmmm....would that be enlist Blacks or draft Blacks into there Army.  It was said that between 60000 and 93000 Blacks served the Confederacy in some capacity.

Enlist, Walks. There were Blacks that fought for the South. After all, it was their homes under assault, as well.

Quote
As part of my blood line is of the Western Cherokee descent I am just asking. 

Your eastern kin ambushed and killed my Fifth Great Grand Pap, the same one that fought at Kings Mountain, in 1796 while he was on deer hunt. Grrrr! :smile:
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Offline walkstall

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24645
  • Gender: Male
  • WYSIWYG
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2012, 09:16:21 PM »
Enlist, Walks. There were Blacks that fought for the South. After all, it was their homes under assault, as well.

Your eastern kin ambushed and killed my Fifth Great Grand Pap, the same one that fought at Kings Mountain, in 1796 while he was on deer hunt. Grrrr! :smile:

I keep tell you people to move out West.   Ya know some of the Western Cherokee were know to have kill some of the Eastern Cherokee.  So it has been told around my Great Grandfathers camp fires as a young kid. 
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession.  I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.  ~ Ronald Reagan ~

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9348
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2012, 08:07:31 PM »
In reality, the Souths greatest hope depended upon recognition by France and Great Britain. But although the aristocracy of those countries felt some sympathy for the South, the middle classes of both countries despised the slave owning South.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2012, 06:57:03 AM »
Enlist, Walks. There were Blacks that fought for the South. After all, it was their homes under assault, as well.

Your eastern kin ambushed and killed my Fifth Great Grand Pap, the same one that fought at Kings Mountain, in 1796 while he was on deer hunt. Grrrr! :smile:

Enlist?  Slaves enlisted?  Of their own "free will?"  How's about owners offered them the option of serving or the lash?  Maybe not that bad, but I don't think history records a lot of slaves rallying to the Bonnie Blue early on in the war.  Seems like I recall reading of some effort to offer freedom in exchange for service much later in the war when, in fact, it was pretty much over anyway.  Even that didn't seem to meet with much favor among fire-eaters or slaves. 

True, some did serve, and of those, some probably did serve willingly.  But mostly slaves (a/k/a "contrabands") flocked to Union soldiers in a bid for freedom.  Which is exactly what I would have done had I been in their shoes. 

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2012, 08:32:17 AM »
Enlist?  Slaves enlisted?  Of their own "free will?"  How's about owners offered them the option of serving or the lash?  Maybe not that bad, but I don't think history records a lot of slaves rallying to the Bonnie Blue early on in the war.  Seems like I recall reading of some effort to offer freedom in exchange for service much later in the war when, in fact, it was pretty much over anyway.  Even that didn't seem to meet with much favor among fire-eaters or slaves. 

True, some did serve, and of those, some probably did serve willingly.  But mostly slaves (a/k/a "contrabands") flocked to Union soldiers in a bid for freedom.  Which is exactly what I would have done had I been in their shoes. 

FWIW, Elmer.

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm

Believe or not.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2012, 09:48:51 AM »
FWIW, Elmer.

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm

Believe or not.

Thanks.  I believe it completely.  I submit that 65,000 out of the total number that COULD have enlisted is not exactly a whopping %age.  Certainly not compared to the %age of whites that could have enlisted.  And of that 65,000, 13,000 "met the elephant."  Of all those who "met the elephant," I would guess this is a fairly small %age, wouldn't you? 

My questions would still be: of that 65,000, 13,000 of whom "met the elephant," how many would have, instead, opted for freedom by crossing into Union territory if THAT had been an option?  And how many who "enlisted" really did so of their own "free will," a concept I have trouble applying to human chattel?

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2012, 10:13:39 AM »
Thanks.  I believe it completely.  I submit that 65,000 out of the total number that COULD have enlisted is not exactly a whopping %age.  Certainly not compared to the %age of whites that could have enlisted.  And of that 65,000, 13,000 "met the elephant."  Of all those who "met the elephant," I would guess this is a fairly small %age, wouldn't you? 

My questions would still be: of that 65,000, 13,000 of whom "met the elephant," how many would have, instead, opted for freedom by crossing into Union territory if THAT had been an option?  And how many who "enlisted" really did so of their own "free will," a concept I have trouble applying to human chattel?

Well, we can both suppose, kinda sorta maybes, and guess to our hearts content, but it means little. It has been shown only about 4.8% of the people living in the South owned slaves. Why, then did the others fight so vehemently to defend their homelands against invasion? It certainly couldn't have been over slavery, could it?

I would also suggest there were Black slave owners, some quite large by the standards of the day. I'm sure you may find some way to spin that, as well.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2012, 11:02:14 AM »
Well, we can both suppose, kinda sorta maybes, and guess to our hearts content, but it means little. It has been shown only about 4.8% of the people living in the South owned slaves. Why, then did the others fight so vehemently to defend their homelands against invasion? It certainly couldn't have been over slavery, could it?

I would also suggest there were Black slave owners, some quite large by the standards of the day. I'm sure you may find some way to spin that, as well.

The war was not about preserveing slavery.  It was about secession.  Absent secession, there would have been no war. Absent the perceived threat to slavery, there would have been no secession.  Those are just the plain facts. 

And you don't have to suggest there were black slave owners. I know there were. You're the spin doctor in this discussion.  To suggest that slaves enlisted to any great degree to preserve the slaveholding Confederacy is on its face absurd. 

It was only when the handwriting was on the wall (that is, the southern states were doomed to defeat) that great efforts were made to enlist black slaves.  And even THEN they were promised freedom in exchange for it.  How many would have enlisted absent that promise?  I have no link, of course, but don't you imagine Jeff Davis would have tried to enlist blacks without that promise had he thought it stood a snowball's chance in hell of working?
(I might also point out that history shows that MOST of the blacks who enlisted under that promise never saw combat because the war ended a scant 6 weeks later, or thereabouts.)

And you accuse ME of spin.

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2012, 11:47:53 AM »
The war was not about preserveing slavery.  It was about secession.  Absent secession, there would have been no war. Absent the perceived threat to slavery, there would have been no secession.  Those are just the plain facts. 

Sorry, Elmer, Old Top, but just you saying those are the plain facts, does not make it true. The War was over the concept of whether a state, having determined the union is not in it's best interest, has a right, nay, even an obligation, to withdraw from that union.

Quote
And you don't have to suggest there were black slave owners. I know there were. You're the spin doctor in this discussion.  To suggest that slaves enlisted to any great degree to preserve the slaveholding Confederacy is on its face absurd.

Recall, Elmer, 'twas not I that contended slaves enlisted to fight in any great degree. My comment was simply there were a some that 'met the elephant'

Quote
It was only when the handwriting was on the wall (that is, the southern states were doomed to defeat) that great efforts were made to enlist black slaves.

I do believe my first premise was the South waited far too long in offering enlistments to the majority of slaves.

Quote
And even THEN they were promised freedom in exchange for it.

Probably true, but there were instances when freed Blacks worked along side slaves.

Quote
  How many would have enlisted absent that promise?  I have no link, of course, but don't you imagine Jeff Davis would have tried to enlist blacks without that promise had he thought it s
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2012, 01:49:28 PM »
Sorry, Elmer, Old Top, but just you saying those are the plain facts, does not make it true. The War was over the concept of whether a state, having determined the union is not in it's best interest, has a right, nay, even an obligation, to withdraw from that union.

Recall, Elmer, 'twas not I that contended slaves enlisted to fight in any great degree. My comment was simply there were a some that 'met the elephant'

I do believe my first premise was the South waited far too long in offering enlistments to the majority of slaves.

Probably true, but there were instances when freed Blacks worked along side slaves.

How many would have enlisted absent that promise?  I have no link, of course, but don't you imagine Jeff Davis would have tried to enlist blacks without that promise had he thought it s

YOu said this:

"Sorry, Elmer, Old Top, but just you saying those are the plain facts, does not make it true. The War was over the concept of whether a state, having determined the union is not in it's best interest, has a right, nay, even an obligation, to withdraw from that union."

I said this:

The war was about secession.


I said the same thing you did in far fewer words.  Plus I added the issue that made the question arise in the first place: the perceived threat to slavery.  Just read the speeches.  If it was tariffs, don't you think somebody would have said something about it in the speeches? RAther than focusing on slavery when only (according your figures) about 5% of the population owned slaves? But 100% suffered these "onerous" tariffs?

Next you'll be telling me that the fact that Japs enlisted in the 442nd Regimental Combat Team proves they were supportive of interning Japanese Americans during WWII.


 

Powered by EzPortal