Could the South have won?

Started by BILLY Defiant, February 11, 2012, 07:42:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

elmerfudd

Quote from: Shooterman on March 03, 2012, 02:25:32 PM
Why, Elmer, did it take two years to sign the Emancipation Declaration? Two years to decide if the issue was slavery? Give me a break!

Because, Mr. Shooter, as any student of history would know (I learned in American History in high school), Lincoln needed a "moral" reason for continuing the war.  Preserving the Union was getting a little "thin" as the war dragged on.  Many of those who were afire to save the union were beginning to think, is it really worth it?  Look at all the lives.  The costs.  They were beginning to think maybe they should just let the south have their independence and take their nigras with them.  But issuing the Emancipation Proclamation (which, incidentally, did not free a single slave, since it applied only to slaves in the seceded states, over which Lincoln had no real jurisdiction even if he thought he had "constitutional" powers over them) made ending slavery the raison d'etre for continuing the war.  Not for starting it.  For continuing it.  (And thanks for asking.)

Now you give me a break, okay?  Look back at the history of the U.S. from the constitutional convention of 1787 through the Missouri Compromise through the Compromise of 1850 through the Dred Scott Decsion through Harper's Ferry and through the secession speeches themselves, and then tell me, with a straight face, that secession was not over slavery but over tariffs.  Here are some links.  I have also excerpted some things from each. 

http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/34491

William L. Harris, the Mississippi secession commissioner to Georgia, addressed a joint session of the General Assembly at noon at the capitol in Milledgeville.  He urged secession and concluded his speech by saying that Mississippi "had rather see the last of her race, men, women, and children, immolated in one common funeral pile, than see them subjected to the degradation of civil, political and social equality with the negro race."  (By John Osborne)

http://www.garyrutledge.com/Documents/JeffersonDavisSpeech.htm

They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North had been endeavoring of late to do - to stir up insurrection among our slaves?

http://www.civilwarcauses.org/anderson.htm

"Whereas, they (the people of the non-slaveholding States) have elected a majority of electors for President and Vice-President, on the ground that there exists an irreconcilable conflict between the two sections of the Confederacy, in reference to their respective systems of labor, and in pursuance of their hostility to us and our institutions, have thus declared to the civilized world that the powers of the government are to be used for the dishonor and overthrow of the Southern section of this great Confederacy. Therefore, be it


http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the  (yada, yada, yada, and nary a mention of "tariffs")

I feel sure you will do it (tell me that despite all the evidence to the contrary, it was "tariffs," not slavery.  But do me this favor.  Find a few shreds of evidence to support it and post them.  I have barely scratched the surface of the evidence that supports slavery was the overarching reason for secession. The reason without which no secession would have ever occurred. 

I would have gotten back to you sooner but, as you may not know, I've been in time out. 




Shooterman

I have read some of the secession statements, Elmer, and know what they say. It seems however, in my opinion, by stating the War to preserve the union was growing thin, and Lincoln needed a 'moral reason' to continue the carnage, rape, and pillage of the South, that Lincoln knew he was on unconstitutional grounds, ( as he had argued for secession years before ) and he was not going to cave to the Rebs, he concocted the Emancipation Proclamation, mostly to freeze any help the Europeans had envisioned giving. Later of course, he even blamed the War on the Wrath of God and His Judgement on America for Slavery.

By force, Lincoln preserved the Union. By force, the Yankees PUBS pillaged the South through Reconstruction, and by force, the Republic was rent asunder and has never recovered. By force, the union became nationalistic.
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

Quote from: Shooterman on March 07, 2012, 04:40:15 PM
I have read some of the secession statements, Elmer, and know what they say. It seems however, in my opinion, by stating the War to preserve the union was growing thin, and Lincoln needed a 'moral reason' to continue the carnage, rape, and pillage of the South, that Lincoln knew he was on unconstitutional grounds, ( as he had argued for secession years before ) and he was not going to cave to the Rebs, he concocted the Emancipation Proclamation, mostly to freeze any help the Europeans had envisioned giving. Later of course, he even blamed the War on the Wrath of God and His Judgement on America for Slavery.

By force, Lincoln preserved the Union. By force, the Yankees PUBS pillaged the South through Reconstruction, and by force, the Republic was rent asunder and has never recovered. By force, the union became nationalistic.

I agree with you on all of that.  Where we seem to disagree, and you completely dodged it in your response, is what caused secession in the first place. 

And had it not been for the fire eater John W. Booth, reconstruction probably would not have been nearly as bad as it was.  Lincoln's plan was to "let 'em up easy," and he had the cojones to make it happen (IMO). 

As far as raping and pillaging the south, certainly that occurred. It would have occurred in the north, too, but we southerners couldn't seem to get a toe hold long enough to do any pillaging, let alone raping.  It's the nature of war.  (Especially a "civil" war.)  The best way to end a war is to kill (or at least torment) as many civilians as you can.  Everybody expects soldiers to suffer and die.  They don't like it, but it's expected.  But when civilians start suffering and dying, the pressure to end the war builds up fast.  It's one of the reasons the A-bombs were so effective in ending WWII. 

Eyesabide

Yes, the south could have won. If they could not have won, they would have lost quickly.
Muskets High!

mdgiles

Quote from: Eyesabide on May 16, 2012, 04:41:51 AM
Yes, the south could have won. If they could not have won, they would have lost quickly.
Actually the only thing that kept the South alive was a succession of incompetent Generals in the East. What finally won for the Unions was a general who recognized that war was more than one or two battles. Where Grant differed from the other Generals was that he never lost sight of the main campaign. Even after bloody draws at the Wilderness and at Spotsylvania Courthouse - and an absolute disaster at Cold Harbor - he kept heading South, because he recognized what the other generals hadn't. Force Lee into entrenchments defending Richmond, and it was just a matter of time.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Annoying Armed Conservative

Okay, I'm going to try to resolve the issue of why the south seceded once and for all, though I'll probably fall on my ass in the attempt.  I feel it a worthy cause.  He goes.

The question of "Was it tariffs, slavery, or states' rights?" is D, all of the above, but technically states' rights.  How?  All of the reasons can be placed under States' Rights.  Here's the breakdown:
This list is from biggest to smallest.
States' Rights
--Slavery
--The perceived feeling of oppression from Yankee Tyranny
----Tariffs
----etc.
--etc.

If you wish to add more go right a head.
Summation of my views:  If it ain't in the Constitution the Feds shouldn't be allowed to do it.  As I see it Abortion and Gay Marriage is irrelevant Federally.  The 10th Amendment tells me so.  If I were forced to choose a side I'd vote against both, for Leftists can't be trusted.

tbone0106

Quote from: AnnoyingArmedConservative on July 05, 2012, 11:47:39 AM
Okay, I'm going to try to resolve the issue of why the south seceded once and for all, though I'll probably fall on my ass in the attempt.  I feel it a worthy cause.  He goes.

The question of "Was it tariffs, slavery, or states' rights?" is D, all of the above, but technically states' rights.  How?  All of the reasons can be placed under States' Rights.  Here's the breakdown:
This list is from biggest to smallest.
States' Rights
--Slavery
--The perceived feeling of oppression from Yankee Tyranny
----Tariffs
----etc.
--etc.

If you wish to add more go right a head.
I've made this point on other threads, but I'll throw it out there again. It was the ECONOMY.

Slavery was the basis of the Southern economy, and ONLY for that reason, it was worth secession and war.

kramarat

#52
I always thought it was because democrats were greedy and lazy. But what do I know?

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html

Did I mention that they are the party of hatred and racial division?

Kind of explains why rewriting history is so important.

Start in the schools.

bluelieu

Back to topic...

The South would have lived longer if not for the 2 northern invasions.  The ANV barely escaped a severe mauling at Sharpesburg and was well-gored at Gettysburg.  When they stayed within their own borders they enjoyed the advantage interior lines of supply and communication, but I don't believe  would have saved them in the long run.    To survive, they desperately needed foreign support which prompted Antietam (along with the desire to include Maryland in their cause) and Gettysburg.  If they had fought a completely defensive war, I believe they would have eventually have been bled white by either an Anaconda envelopment or by having their guts ripped out by a Shermanesque campaign behind their lines.  They were gambling on a Saratoga-like victory which would bring in a foreign power.  Both attempts failed.

BILLY Defiant

I beleive the South COULD have won, had England taken a more active part as they had considered...however, England...who had first abolished slavery and imposed laws against "blackbirding" in the early 1800's had a moral delima in this regard.


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

mdgiles

Quote from: Bad water BILLY on July 13, 2012, 07:02:37 PM
I beleive the South COULD have won, had England taken a more active part as they had considered...however, England...who had first abolished slavery and imposed laws against "blackbirding" in the early 1800's had a moral delima in this regard.


Billy
There was no moral dilemma in Great Britain. As you noted, Great Britain had long been a foe of slavery, indeed European Imperialism was one of the great forces against slavery in world history. An although the British Aristocracy felt some sympathy for the South, seeing them as an aristocracy not unlike themselves, slavery was the sticking point. Had the Confederacy abolished Slavery and gone to some type of peonage system (sharecropping) they might have had British support. But there was always the point that Britain desired the good will of the US - a rising industrial power - as an offset against their continental enemies. Helping the South and making mortal enemies of the rest of the Union wasn't a plus for the British. France helping Revolutionary America was a case of weakening an old enemy, Britain helping the South would be a case of weakening a potential ally.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Sci Fi Fan

Quote from: AnnoyingArmedConservative on July 05, 2012, 11:47:39 AM

This list is from biggest to smallest.
States' Rights
--Slavery
--The perceived feeling of oppression from Yankee Tyranny
----Tariffs
----etc.
--etc.

Correction:

Slavery
"Oppression"

States' rights



Tariffs/etc



I put slavery above states' rights because, among other reasons, the confederate constitution bans the states from ever abolishing slavery (so slavery trumps states' rights in priority).  I put tariffs at the bottom because, after the nullification crisis, it really falls to the sidelines, the declarations of secession pay mild lip service to it, and Lincoln does not even bother to address it in his inaugural.

skuttlebutt

I believe Great Britain was salivating at the Battle of Gettysburg. If Lee had of won, I believe the English may have come in on the side of the South. They still wanted there Colonies back and a divided US would be so much easier to conquer.

mdgiles

Quote from: skuttlebutt on July 31, 2012, 07:33:43 AM
I believe Great Britain was salivating at the Battle of Gettysburg. If Lee had of won, I believe the English may have come in on the side of the South. They still wanted there Colonies back and a divided US would be so much easier to conquer.
The US - especially the part of the US controlled by the Union - was already becoming an industrial giant. It would have not only been difficult to conquer, but Britain ran the risk of losing Canada. And what good would winning at Gettysburg have done for the ANV. They had won a number of battles in the East already. And on the same day they lost at Gettysburg, Vicksburg surrendered - which was the end to a string of disasters in the West. Too much attention is paid to Lee in Virginia, when in reality the South was losing everywhere else.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

skuttlebutt

Quote from: mdgiles link=topic=5599.msg 83124#msg 83124 date=1343754623
The US - especially the part of the US controlled by the Union - was already becoming an industrial giant. It would have not only been difficult to conquer, but Britain ran the risk of losing Canada. And what good would winning at Gettysburg have done for the ANV. They had won a number of battles in the East already. And on the same day they lost at Gettysburg, Vicksburg surrendered - which was the end to a string of disasters in the West. Too much attention is paid to Lee in Virginia, when in reality the South was losing everywhere else.


No one ever accuse Great Britain with being overly intelligent. There is a Country that celebrates it's defeats more than it's victories. Britain considered the US one of it's greatest enemies almost until the beginning of WWI.