Started by BILLY Defiant, February 11, 2012, 12:42:01 PM
Quote from: Mountainshield on April 23, 2013, 08:04:19 PMTaking 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.
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on February 11, 2012, 12:42:01 PMWhat 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
Quote from: Darth Fife on May 24, 2013, 11:30:17 PMThe South didn't have to "Win" the war. It just had to keep from losing it. There are many factors which contributed to this loss, but I feel that one of the most overlooked issues was transportation. The Industrialized North had a massive and standardized rail system. In the South, most railroads were centered near cities and few were standardized. Equipment from one local system could not operated on the tracks of a neighboring system and vice versa. This meant that the North could (and did!) move men, and supplies quickly by rail from one area to another as needed, while the South was pretty much moving men and supplies the same way armies moved them for the past 3 or 4 thousand years - on foot or by horse cart!In fact the first U.S. Congressional Medals of Honor were awarded to Northern raiders who sabotaged rail lines in an attempt to deny its use by the South. -Darth
Quote from: TboneAgain on May 28, 2013, 12:57:23 PMGood points. But hardly news. Did the Confederacy NOT know that it was woefully lacking in transportation infrastructure, compared to the Union? Was the Jefferson Davis coalition THAT blind?The fact that the southern states were poorly connected by rail and road was certainly not a secret when South Carolina decided to secede. By nature and definition, slavery had always been used to supplant technology. "Why buy a gin when I've already bought a hundred Negroes?"
Quote from: mdgiles on June 24, 2013, 12:32:14 AMIt's said that amateurs talk strategy and tactics, while professionals talk logistics. The South didn't even think about all the industrial, transportation and population advantages that the North enjoyed. In their arrogance they simply felt that the were "better" than Northerners. It's fascinating because of the focus that is placed upon the battles in the East - where the North lost all the battles - except the important ones; as opposed to the rest of the Confederacy - where the South lost every important battle except one. Any objective observer - let's say someone not blinded by Lee's victories - Pyrrhic every one (Lee's casualties in all of his "victories', except Fredricksburg, were simply horrific, and irreplaceable) - who looked at the overall picture, would have seen the South's condition steadily declining.
Quote from: Partisan62 on June 26, 2013, 07:45:32 AMThere were battle losses at every turn, multiple armies defeated, major cities occupied and vital ports closed. It was a desperate fight against a foe with a huge advantage in men under arms, complete naval supremacy and world class industrial might.How in the world could these men have ever hoped to win against such a foe? Why did they ever try to take on such a behemoth? What were they thinking?Oh wait.....I got my history books mixed up...so sorry....what I described above is the situation in early 1780 during the American Revolution. Funny how history shows up in the same places. The 1780-1781 campaign in South Carolina was the real turning point of the Revolution...there wouldn't be a United States without the blood of Palmetto State patriots, including my ancestors. Why would their descendents believe that the fight was hopeless in the Second American Revolution when their fathers and grandfathers had won the equally hopeless First American Revolution. Yes, the South could have won; if three cigars wrapped in an order at Sharpsburg had not been lost, who knows. We DO know that we have the monstrous all powerful government and fewer rights and freedoms because the South lost that war. Although not immediately exploited, the centralization of power in the hands of the federal government began when the War of Northern Aggression ended.
Quote from: daidalos on June 27, 2013, 12:39:51 PMLee's decision at Gettysburg to attack cost them the war.Had he instead carried out his orders from Richmond, to carry out a defensive campaign, it's likely there would be today a Confederate States of America, and in the north a United States of America.Separate nations, but two which are very, very, close in both culture, and economics.
Quote from: Walter Josh on June 28, 2013, 05:09:53 AMmdgiles, w/respect.You ask, "Which outside power was supposed to have come to the aidof the Confederacy. Great Britain? That would have meant war w/the only other Anglo-Saxon power and probably the loss of Canada."A demurral w/your assertions.Remember that in 1860 the USA was but 72 years old and hardly a world power.In contrast, Britain was at its zenith w/the Union Jack unfurled over some 40% of the globe. Her Navy comprising 1000+ warships went where it pleased landingas many troops as it pleased. We defeated Britain in an 8 years guerilla war commencing in 1775 and later in 1812. During the former she was engaged w/theAustrians, French and Russians on the continent and during the latter w/Napoleon.Whitehall had long memories of both defeats. But in 1860, Britain had been at peace since the Crimea and had 45,000 regulars in Canada alone, commanded by Garnet Wolseley,arguably Britain's greatest general between Wellington and Kitchener. Lincoln, Chase,Stanton, among others, grasped that Britain was to be feared and a natural ally of the South.Great Britain's power was derivative of its wealth which came largely from the great mills of Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester. Southern cotton was the vital resource, as the plantations from East Bengal had not, as yet, become cost effective. But slavery was the bane.Had the South been able to let go of that peculiar institution, North America would look fardifferently today.
Quote from: walkstall on June 28, 2013, 08:16:26 AMNew map may explain Lee's decisions at Gettysburg.snip~GETTYSBURG, Pa. (AP) — On the second day of fighting at Gettysburg, Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee listened to scouting reports, scanned the battlefield and ordered his second-in-command, James Longstreet, to attack the Union Army's left flank.It was a fateful decision, one that led to one of the most desperate clashes of the entire Civil War — the fight for a piece of ground called Little Round Top. The Union's defense of the boulder-strewn promontory helped send Lee to defeat at Gettysburg, and he never again ventured into Northern territory.Why did the shrewd and canny Lee choose to attack, especially in the face of the Union's superior numbers?While historians have long wrestled with that question, geographers and cartographers have come up with an explanation, by way of sophisticated mapping software that shows the rolling terrain exactly as it would have appeared to Lee: From his vantage point, he simply couldn't see throngs of Union soldiers amid the hills and valleys.more @http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20130628/US--Gettysburg-Mapping.the.Battlefield/