Author Topic: Could the South have won?  (Read 7995 times)

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8008
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #60 on: August 01, 2012, 11:27:49 AM »

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.
Britain started considering the US a potential ally almost from the time the War of 1812 was over. We spoke the same language, and our political institutions were similar. We forget that the Monroe Doctrine was supported nor so much by US power, but by the Royal Navy.  Almost from the time we stop shooting at each other, the US and Britain have settle almost every dispute via diplomacy, even the famous Trent incident. As for British intelligence, during that time Great Britain was engaged in building the greatest empire in the history of mankind. They hadn't quite reached "sun never sets" status yet, but they were getting there. One of the main reasons the US and Britain wouldn't have come to blows, was that empire. For example the British had just frustrated Russian ambitions in the Balkans. Now they were coming through Central Asia headed for India. The last thing the British wanted was to get into a war with the US and have the Russians and French come in on the American side - putting all their newly gained colonies - especially India, the "Jewel in the Crown" - at risk.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 5201
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #61 on: August 01, 2012, 06:42:27 PM »
I haven't read all of the posts, and I'm just butting in. But in a sense, the south hasn't lost yet. They have morphed into the democrat party.

Why stop at enslaving black people, when we can enslave everyone?

This is what we face.

They merely changed tactics. The goal is the same.

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8008
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #62 on: August 02, 2012, 06:47:04 AM »
I haven't read all of the posts, and I'm just butting in. But in a sense, the south hasn't lost yet. They have morphed into the democrat party.

Why stop at enslaving black people, when we can enslave everyone?

This is what we face.

They merely changed tactics. The goal is the same.
But they used to be honest about it: "We want those slaves to work for us and keep us rich"!
Now it's: "We're doing all this for your own good, or for the children".
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 5201
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #63 on: August 02, 2012, 09:01:02 AM »
But they used to be honest about it: "We want those slaves to work for us and keep us rich"!
Now it's: "We're doing all this for your own good, or for the children".

Yep. Our governor, the honorless Bev Perdue, just used the tactic a few weeks ago. She wanted the sales tax raised...................Her justification?

"If we don't raise the taxes, the children will suffer."  That's a direct quote. These people could look their own mothers in the eye and lie through their teeth. :mad:

Offline RevStan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #64 on: November 16, 2012, 09:59:35 PM »
Well!! They didn't lets just sve the south today :thumbup:
Endeavour to persevere

Offline Darth Fife

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #65 on: December 24, 2012, 07:23:14 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

I'd have to agree with you.

In actuality, the South didn't have to "win" the war, to win. All it had to do was make sure it didn't lose it.

Few people realize just how hotly contested the election of 1864 was! The war was going badly and the cost in "treasure" and lives was becoming unbearable.

Lincoln faced opposition from within his own party who thought that he wasn't doing enough to end slavery, while, on the other hand, the Democrats fielded one of Lincoln's own General's - George McClelland - on a platform of "Peace at all Costs".

Even back then Democrats were surrender monkeys! 

Had John Fermont of California mounted a serious third party campaign, the vote would have been split and the election would have gone to McClelland.

If this had happened, McClelland, in all likelihood, would have sued for peace with the South and recognized the Confederate States of America as a separate and sovereign nation.
"You've been told many times before, messiahs pointed to the door
But no one had the guts to leave the Temple!"
-Tommy, The Who

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8008
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #66 on: January 06, 2013, 10:54:28 AM »
Why would McClellan have sued for peace? More likely he would have gotten credit for "winning" the war when he really didn't deserve it. By the time of the 1864 election, Grant had Lee under siege in Richmond/Petersburg, Sherman was burning Atlanta, and the Union controlled the entire Mississippi. Besides Lincoln - with the Emancipation Proclamation - had pretty much ended the South's chances of receiving recognition from any foreign power. I think Lee's defeating a series of inept commanders in the East, not to mention a series of revisionist Southern writers exalting Lee - as opposed to the "butcher" Grant - often blinds people to how bad the situation of the South was after Gettysburg.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline Mountainshield

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1451
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #67 on: February 08, 2013, 09:45:43 AM »
Why would McClellan have sued for peace? More likely he would have gotten credit for "winning" the war when he really didn't deserve it. By the time of the 1864 election, Grant had Lee under siege in Richmond/Petersburg, Sherman was burning Atlanta, and the Union controlled the entire Mississippi. Besides Lincoln - with the Emancipation Proclamation - had pretty much ended the South's chances of receiving recognition from any foreign power. I think Lee's defeating a series of inept commanders in the East, not to mention a series of revisionist Southern writers exalting Lee - as opposed to the "butcher" Grant - often blinds people to how bad the situation of the South was after Gettysburg.

I agree, also they had an inflation rate of over 5750% at the end depending on your source.

I have to say the question about slavery and secession is complicated only because of the emotional connections the people on both sides of the argument wants to transmit i.e leftists wants secessionists, anti taxation, and small government advocates to be associated with slave owners/racists/white supremacists instead of white/black citizens taking up arms against authoritarian federal government, while the people on the other side want Lincoln/pro union side which basicly ignored the constitution, expanded the role of the government, introduced paper as legal tender and income tax to be the side that is closet/open racist, authoritarian and traitors instead of a American Hero figure/good guys vs evil slave owners. None of the sides is racist today wether pro union or pro right to seceede, but because what you believe to be fact decides which part is racist, the issue becomes which side was/is the true racists instead of a discussion about the constitutional/legality of war/secession.

As a white man married to a black woman, I rarely touch the issue due to the emotions connected with slavery/racism.

Edit: sorry for my norwenglish btw :)
« Last Edit: February 08, 2013, 09:54:41 AM by Mountainshield »
“War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.” - William Tecumseh Sherman

Offline Mountainshield

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1451
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #68 on: February 09, 2013, 03:07:38 AM »
What I would like to say though is

As a conservative I'm against slavery but also for Jurice Prudence uber alles to put it that way. So while I'm against slavery, I'm also for state rights.

As a right winger I'm pro strong UNITED States of America, because stronger the US the more secure liberty is worlwide. I.e USA could never have interviened in WW2 and liberated Norway from the Socialist Worker Party of Germany if it was divided.

As a Christian Fundementalist I'm a natural abolitionist

As a libertarian I'm against the Union expansion of government, paper as legal tender and the big bank corporatiions behind the Union.

In conclusion the US civil war is just sad piece of history, and even though we should learn as much as possible from it, study it and remember those who died. It is one of those events in history where lines between good and evil is blurred. There is no straight answer as both sides had good and evil in them. As conservatives its easy to fall in a political pitfall like Ron Paul did when he said he did not think the Civil War was necessary.

That being said the question "Could the South have won?" is a perfectly legitimate question and I believe they could if it wasn't for a both tactical and stratigical mistakes that forced them on the defensive instead of a swift campaign straight to Washington DC. As others with more knowledge about the war than me have already posted in this thread.

The debate on the reasons for civil war, and which side was the true racist is one I will not get into, as I don't see any fruithfull advantage, even if it proves the North was the more racists. But the reasons for war is in itself good debate as history is usually not what have been taught in school if you take the time and read the actual facts, but making this a rethorical politican discussion as Elmerfudd wants to do instead of a historical discussion belongs in another thread imo.
“War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.” - William Tecumseh Sherman

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8008
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #69 on: February 26, 2013, 02:03:01 PM »
The South only became interested in "States Rights" when they could no longer run the Union to their satisfaction. Up until the election of 1860, the South - or Slave Power as the North referred to them - had pretty much run the Union. Again and again the North and West had had to fore go their own best interests in order placate the South. During the 1850's it became more and more obvious that the South wouldn't be satisfied until they made the slave law of the South, the laws of the United States.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline simpsonofpg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 826
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #70 on: March 13, 2013, 01:06:00 PM »
We didn't lose we ran out of bullets.
The Golden Rule is the only rule we need.

Offline simpsonofpg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 826
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #71 on: March 29, 2013, 09:25:16 AM »
We didn't lose we ran out of bullets.  The war was about states rights and not slavery and still we have states right issues and they are getting worse.  I hope we don't have to do it all over again.
The Golden Rule is the only rule we need.

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8008
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #72 on: April 23, 2013, 01:09:26 PM »
We didn't lose we ran out of bullets.  The war was about states rights and not slavery and still we have states right issues and they are getting worse.  I hope we don't have to do it all over again.
Then you will have to explain why the secession documents of each and every state were specific about slavery being the cause. Not to mention how the Constitution of the Confederacy made slavery the one thing that couldn't be touched by the amendment process. We should also remember of much of the wealth of the South the slaves represented. That's one of the reasons the South became one of the poorest regions of the country for so long; much of the Souths wealth had disappeared, with no compensation. By choosing to fight, rather than go to some type of compensated abolition scheme, the South shot itself in the foot, big time. And we should remember that slavery was the only difference between the Union and the South; and even that wasn't a complete difference until the 13th Amendment. The South lost all its wealth, and had the country destroyed by the fact that most of the war took place on their territory.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline Mountainshield

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1451
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #73 on: April 24, 2013, 03:04:19 AM »
This is off topic, but I think it's a relevant point. I like Ron Paul but I disagree with his assessment on the civil war that slavery would eventually be abolished.

Taking darwinism and the rise of eugenics into account I don't think slavery would have been solved by free abolition by the South. If there was no civil war, religion would not be sufficient to cause abolition of slavery as justification for slavery would have been embraced through darwinism, which is still embraced today even though aspects of darwinism like race realism is tabo/outlawed.
“War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.” - William Tecumseh Sherman

Offline Solar

  • '
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34214
  • Gender: Male
Re: Could the South have won?
« Reply #74 on: April 24, 2013, 06:14:57 AM »
This is off topic, but I think it's a relevant point. I like Ron Paul but I disagree with his assessment on the civil war that slavery would eventually be abolished.

Taking darwinism and the rise of eugenics into account I don't think slavery would have been solved by free abolition by the South. If there was no civil war, religion would not be sufficient to cause abolition of slavery as justification for slavery would have been embraced through darwinism, which is still embraced today even though aspects of darwinism like race realism is tabo/outlawed.
Yep, Western culture is a living lie, we claim to have abolished slavery, and a myriad of injustices, when in reality, we're living a lie.
Dominance is human nature, be it his environment, or his position in life, it is our heredity to influence all that is around us, and controlling others is a natural human trait.

Denying slavery will never return is like denying the human aggression.
We want peace, while our enemy wants to enslave us, and at the rate we're destroying our Nation and our culture, that day is not far off.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

 

Powered by EzPortal