Conservative Political Forum

General Category => War Forum => Topic started by: BILLY Defiant on February 11, 2012, 12:42:01 PM

Title: Could the South have won?
Post by: BILLY Defiant on February 11, 2012, 12:42:01 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
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: taxed on February 11, 2012, 12:44:18 PM
I have wondered if the South had used long bows if that would have been an advantage...
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: BILLY Defiant on February 11, 2012, 12:59:42 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
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Shooterman on February 11, 2012, 01:01:17 PM
Quote from: CHEVY VOLT GOVT on February 11, 2012, 12:42:01 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

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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: walkstall on February 11, 2012, 01:48:10 PM
Quote from: Shooterman on February 11, 2012, 01:01:17 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. 
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Shooterman on February 11, 2012, 02:00:04 PM
Quote from: walkstall on February 11, 2012, 01:48:10 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.

QuoteAs 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:
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: walkstall on February 11, 2012, 02:16:21 PM
Quote from: Shooterman on February 11, 2012, 02:00:04 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. 
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on February 12, 2012, 01:07:31 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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: elmerfudd on February 12, 2012, 11:57:03 PM
Quote from: Shooterman on February 11, 2012, 02:00:04 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:

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. 
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Shooterman on February 13, 2012, 01:32:17 AM
Quote from: elmerfudd on February 12, 2012, 11:57:03 PM
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 (http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm)

Believe or not.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: elmerfudd on February 13, 2012, 02:48:51 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on February 13, 2012, 01:32:17 AM
FWIW, Elmer.

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm (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?
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Shooterman on February 13, 2012, 03:13:39 AM
Quote from: elmerfudd on February 13, 2012, 02:48:51 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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: elmerfudd on February 13, 2012, 04:02:14 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on February 13, 2012, 03:13:39 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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Shooterman on February 13, 2012, 04:47:53 AM
Quote from: elmerfudd on February 13, 2012, 04:02:14 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.

QuoteAnd 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'

QuoteIt 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.

QuoteAnd even THEN they were promised freedom in exchange for it.

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

QuoteHow 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
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: elmerfudd on February 13, 2012, 06:49:28 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on February 13, 2012, 04:47:53 AM
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.

Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Shooterman on February 13, 2012, 07:09:48 AM
Quote from: elmerfudd on February 13, 2012, 06:49:28 AM
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.

The war was about states rights, ( a misnomer, I know ) of which secession was a part. The South would still, in my opinion, have seceded, even if slavery was not prevalent.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on February 13, 2012, 09:51:20 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on February 13, 2012, 03:13:39 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.
Because it was the dream of every Southern boy to someday be rich an own a plantation full of slaves. That's along the lines of asking why factory workers defended capitalism against communism. One would think that the idea of a "workers paradise" would appeal to them.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on February 13, 2012, 10:03:11 AM
BTW, the South held the "wage slaves" of the North in contempt - in the South manual labor was something a slave did. But those factory workers of the North understood technology in a way that Southerners didn't. Hence the North's better usage of such technology as the telegraph and the railroad. The union cavalry at Gettysburg, held up the Lee's army for vital hours because they were armed with repeating carbines and the South had single shot muskets. The North also tended to be better at organization. Although the South did perform wonders in starting from a smaller industrial base. In many ways, the South reminds me of the Japanese in the second world war, in their belief that bravery and spiritual elements would overcome industrial might. The minute the North started getting generals who understood modern warfare, the South was doomed.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Shooterman on February 13, 2012, 12:15:01 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on February 13, 2012, 09:51:20 AM
Because it was the dream of every Southern boy to someday be rich an own a plantation full of slaves.

That seems a mite of a stretch, MD.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: elmerfudd on February 13, 2012, 11:30:48 PM
Quote from: Shooterman on February 13, 2012, 07:09:48 AM
The war was about states rights, ( a misnomer, I know ) of which secession was a part. The South would still, in my opinion, have seceded, even if slavery was not prevalent.

I know that's your opinion, and it's the opinion of every "it was tarrifs, not slavery!" person I have ever met.  The thing is, they all have to ignore the overwhelming preponderence of the evidence that indicates it WAS about slavery, starting with the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, innumerable speeches and canings in the Congress, and the secession speeches themselves.  I imagine that every "it was tarrifs, not slavery" person that arrives in heaven might be met by God Himself Who says "You know, it really WAS about slavery" to which the response would be "Oh no! You mean those revisionists got to you, TOO?"
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Shooterman on February 14, 2012, 01:48:46 AM
Quote from: elmerfudd on February 13, 2012, 11:30:48 PM
I know that's your opinion, and it's the opinion of every "it was tarrifs, not slavery!" person I have ever met.  The thing is, they all have to ignore the overwhelming preponderence of the evidence that indicates it WAS about slavery, starting with the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, innumerable speeches and canings in the Congress, and the secession speeches themselves.  I imagine that every "it was tarrifs, not slavery" person that arrives in heaven might be met by God Himself Who says "You know, it really WAS about slavery" to which the response would be "Oh no! You mean those revisionists got to you, TOO?"

Why would it be about slavery when the Constitution protected slavery and Lincoln argued for an amendment guaranteeing perpetual slavery, in the states it already existed in, for all time to come? The abolitionists, of course, wanted the slaves freed, but like everyone else, they did not want the cheap Black labor in the states that did not have it nor in the new states carved from the territories. Otherwise, compensating the owners for their slaves, giving them freedom, and letting them travel freely, would have been much cheaper than a war.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: elmerfudd on February 14, 2012, 03:37:42 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on February 14, 2012, 01:48:46 AM
Why would it be about slavery when the Constitution protected slavery and Lincoln argued for an amendment guaranteeing perpetual slavery, in the states it already existed in, for all time to come? The abolitionists, of course, wanted the slaves freed, but like everyone else, they did not want the cheap Black labor in the states that did not have it nor in the new states carved from the territories. Otherwise, compensating the owners for their slaves, giving them freedom, and letting them travel freely, would have been much cheaper than a war.
You guys really crack me up. 

The war was fought over the right of states to secede. Statess rights.  Whatever you want to call it.  The overwhelming preponderence of the evidence clearly indcates that the southern states asserted their right to secede because of the perceived threat to slavery.  I don't see how any intelligent being can deny it, but you're proof that they do.  So be it. 

You are absolutely right that compensation would have been cheaper than a war.  And if both sides had had perfect ESP, they would have done it.  But the fire eaters in the south held sway as did the radicals in the north.  The southerners were convinced any southern boy could whip ten limp wristed yankees.  Not so, but they believed it.  Neither side would give.  The result was war. 
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: hokiewoodchuck on February 16, 2012, 09:32:17 PM
Quote from: elmerfudd on February 14, 2012, 03:37:42 AM
You guys really crack me up. 

The war was fought over the right of states to secede. States rights.    So be it.

Finally you understand 

Quote from: elmerfudd on February 14, 2012, 03:37:42 AMThe southerners were convinced any southern boy could whip ten limp wristed yankees. 

Today this applies to ten limp wrist liberals.....

Its amazing how a few truthful statements makes you feel good all over....you get sort of that fuzzy feeling. Feels good doesn't it ELMER.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: elmerfudd on February 17, 2012, 03:30:30 AM
Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on February 16, 2012, 09:32:17 PM
Finally you understand 

Today this applies to ten limp wrist liberals.....

Its amazing how a few truthful statements makes you feel good all over....you get sort of that fuzzy feeling. Feels good doesn't it ELMER.

Nice editing job on the first quote.  Typical conservatard action. If you can't debate, spin.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: hokiewoodchuck on February 17, 2012, 05:58:34 AM
Quote from: elmerfudd on February 17, 2012, 03:30:30 AM
Nice editing job on the first quote.  Typical conservatard action. If you can't debate, spin.

It wasn't 'editing' it was correcting, ya know like the red marks the teacher left on your work at school......and you are welcome.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: elmerfudd on February 23, 2012, 06:52:06 AM
I hate to see a good civil war thread peter out.  Here's a simple exam for all those who think the Civil War was not about slavery.

FACTS:  the civil war erupted because the southern states seceded.  The southern states believed they had that constitutional right and exercised it.

QUESTION: But why did the southern states decide to exercise that constitutional right they beleived they had?  Multiple choice:

a.  The perceived threat to the existence of slavery if they remained in the union
b.  Those stinking, onerous tariffs.
c.   Other (please write it here) ___________________

Now, read the secession speeches and then take the quiz.  No time limit.  If you need a link to the secession speeches, let me know and I will furnish a link. 
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: elmerfudd on March 01, 2012, 12:46:51 AM
Quote from: elmerfudd on February 23, 2012, 06:52:06 AM
I hate to see a good civil war thread peter out.  Here's a simple exam for all those who think the Civil War was not about slavery.

FACTS:  the civil war erupted because the southern states seceded.  The southern states believed they had that constitutional right and exercised it.

QUESTION: But why did the southern states decide to exercise that constitutional right they beleived they had?  Multiple choice:

a.  The perceived threat to the existence of slavery if they remained in the union
b.  Those stinking, onerous tariffs.
c.   Other (please write it here) ___________________

Now, read the secession speeches and then take the quiz.  No time limit.  If you need a link to the secession speeches, let me know and I will furnish a link.

The test must be too hard. No one has taken it. 

The correct answer is "a."
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: hokiewoodchuck on March 01, 2012, 07:33:35 PM
And Lincoln was a closet racist...........why else do you think he sugeested Liberia to the leader of the black race at the time.

Slavery was not high on his list of things to eliminate.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Shooterman on March 01, 2012, 10:40:09 PM
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 01, 2012, 12:46:51 AM
The test must be too hard. No one has taken it. 

The correct answer is "a."

That is what you say.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Shooterman on March 01, 2012, 10:51:15 PM
Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on March 01, 2012, 07:33:35 PM
And Lincoln was a closet racist...........why else do you think he sugeested Liberia to the leader of the black race at the time.

Slavery was not high on his list of things to eliminate.

Actually, there was nothing closet about his racism. As with probably 99% of the country, racism, or the belief that Blacks were an inferior race ( at the time they were ) was a paramount thought in the country.

You are quite correct, Hokie, in that plans were made to buy slaves, give them manumission, or even to ask free Blacks to go to Liberia. Some did.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 04:19:31 AM
Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on March 01, 2012, 07:33:35 PM
And Lincoln was a closet racist...........why else do you think he sugeested Liberia to the leader of the black race at the time.

Slavery was not high on his list of things to eliminate.

Not much in the closet.  Slavery was, indeed, not high on his list.

But it was item number one on the secesh lists.  READ THE SPEECHES.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 04:20:38 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on March 01, 2012, 10:40:09 PM
That is what you say.

So read the speeches, take the test, and let's see what you say. 
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Shooterman on March 02, 2012, 05:30:02 AM
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 04:20:38 AM
So read the speeches, take the test, and let's see what you say. 

The test? That you concocted? Muhahaha!

What you fail to understand, Elmer, is whatever the reason, and slavery is not why the bulk of the Confederates fought, the South still had the right to secede.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 06:09:37 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on March 02, 2012, 05:30:02 AM
The test? That you concocted? Muhahaha!

What you fail to understand, Elmer, is whatever the reason, and slavery is not why the bulk of the Confederates fought, the South still had the right to secede.

I do understand that.  I fully understand that slavery is not the reason the bulk of the Confederacy fought.  Never said it was.  I said otherwise, in fact. 

What I did say is that absent the perceived threat to slavery, the southern states would not have seceded.  History from the founding of this country up to the Civil War bears this out.  The secession speeches themselves bear this out.  No one but a close minded person could possibly assert otherwise. 

Absent secssion, there would have been no war.  That's all I have said. 

And I fully agree that, IMO, the states had the right to secede.  Unfortunately for them, that point was rendered rather moot by the following four years. 
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Shooterman on March 02, 2012, 06:26:56 AM
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 06:09:37 AM
I do understand that.  I fully understand that slavery is not the reason the bulk of the Confederacy fought.  Never said it was.  I said otherwise, in fact. 

What I did say is that absent the perceived threat to slavery, the southern states would not have seceded.

There is absolutely no way that can be stated for certain and you know it.
QuoteHistory from the founding of this country up to the Civil War bears this out.

Simply not so. People had advocated secession from the founding. Jefferson said if that was what they wanted, to go in peace.

QuoteThe secession speeches themselves bear this out.  No one but a close minded person could possibly assert otherwise.

The speeches and writings were political expediency mouthings at best, much as the DOI was.

QuoteAbsent secssion, there would have been no war.  That's all I have said.

To a point- but, and there is always a but, the South had continued to be bullied by the Yankees and their rightful share of tariffs not stolen from them, then they probably would not have wished to secede. In effect, the Fourth Branch of government was denied under the Southern states and continues to be denied today. 

QuoteAnd I fully agree that, IMO, the states had the right to secede.  Unfortunately for them, that point was rendered rather moot by the following four years. 

This we can agree on. Force made overwhelming might, but not right. We are still paying the price for the malfeasance of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 06:56:05 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on March 02, 2012, 06:26:56 AM
There is absolutely no way that can be stated for certain and you know it.
Simply not so. People had advocated secession from the founding. Jefferson said if that was what they wanted, to go in peace.

The speeches and writings were political expediency mouthings at best, much as the DOI was.

To a point- but, and there is always a but, the South had continued to be bullied by the Yankees and their rightful share of tariffs not stolen from them, then they probably would not have wished to secede. In effect, the Fourth Branch of government was denied under the Southern states and continues to be denied today. 

This we can agree on. Force made overwhelming might, but not right. We are still paying the price for the malfeasance of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans.

I am only going to differ with you on the first point. There is absolutely a way that can be stated for certain and I do know it.  I can also state this for certain: there will always be people who deny the connection between slavery and the war of northern aggression.  So be it.  But don't you think they might have said SOMETHING about those tariffs in those speeches if they really were that big a deal? Why would it be politically expedient to give a false reason for secsding?

I know I can't convibce you.  Go in peace my brother. 
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Shooterman on March 02, 2012, 07:06:35 AM
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 06:56:05 AM
I am only going to differ with you on the first point. There is absolutely a way that can be stated for certain and I do know it.  I can also state this for certain: there will always be people who deny the connection between slavery and the war of northern aggression.
[/quote]

Never said there was no connection. It just wasn't the main reason.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: hokiewoodchuck on March 02, 2012, 07:11:47 AM
Very true shooterman.......especially when very few owned slaves.

I think Elmer is comin' 'round.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Shooterman on March 02, 2012, 07:53:45 AM
Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on March 02, 2012, 07:11:47 AM
Very true shooterman.......especially when very few owned slaves.

In the early days of the union, before it became a Nation under Lincoln. The people fought for their family, homes, communities, states, or countries and lastly the union. The union, though revered by such as Calhoun, Lee, and Jefferson Davis among many others, was no more than a entity created by the Compact we call the Constitution. Unlike today, after the War of Northern Aggression, and 150 years under the thumb of the Feds, the union was no more than a coalition the States united in America. Nationalism had been beaten down in the Constitutional Convention, and more importantly, in the State ratifying conventions.

QuoteI think Elmer is comin' 'round.

We'll see in the fulness of time.

Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 10:23:23 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on March 02, 2012, 07:06:35 AM



Never said there was no connection. It just wasn't the main reason.

You're so funny.  Not the main reason. Just the only one mentioned in the secession speeches.  The only one related to the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850. The only one that resulted in numerous fisticuffs and canings in the Congress.  The only one that resulted in bloodshed in Kansas and Harper's Ferry. But not the main reason. 

Too funny. 
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 11:06:47 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on March 02, 2012, 07:06:35 AM



Never said there was no connection. It just wasn't the main reason.

I've been trying to conjure up a scenario to support the theory that tariffs were the main reason for secession rather than the perceived threat to slavery.  This is the best I can do.

The leaders are all sitting around contemplating the grave matter of secession.  One of them finally says "Boys, we all know that we're talkin' 'bout secedin' because of them stinking tariffs.  100% of our people are affected by the tariffs.  Only 4% of us own nigras.  Even though everybody in this room is among that 4% and 85% or better of our wealth is tied up in nigras, we still know it's got nothin' to do with nigras.  That Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Bleedin' Kansas, Harpers' Ferry, that dang book Uncle Tom's Cabin is just red herrings.  It's clearly about tariffs.  However, I'm kinda thinkin' we oughta say it's about the nigras when we make our secesh speeches. And not say nothin' 'bout tariffs.   Somethin' tells me that's the smart thing to do. Whatchall think?

They all ponder this and, the speaker being a guy renowned as a deep thinker, they all figure he must be right.  So they go along with him.

And this happened in EVERY STATE!  I mean, what are the odds, really?

Is that kind of what you think must have happened?
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Shooterman on March 02, 2012, 01:13:56 PM
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 11:06:47 AM
I've been trying to conjure up a scenario to support the theory that tariffs were the main reason for secession rather than the perceived threat to slavery.  This is the best I can do.

The leaders are all sitting around contemplating the grave matter of secession.  One of them finally says "Boys, we all know that we're talkin' 'bout secedin' because of them stinking tariffs.  100% of our people are affected by the tariffs.  Only 4% of us own nigras.  Even though everybody in this room is among that 4% and 85% or better of our wealth is tied up in nigras, we still know it's got nothin' to do with nigras.  That Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Bleedin' Kansas, Harpers' Ferry, that dang book Uncle Tom's Cabin is just red herrings.  It's clearly about tariffs.  However, I'm kinda thinkin' we oughta say it's about the nigras when we make our secesh speeches. And not say nothin' 'bout tariffs.   Somethin' tells me that's the smart thing to do. Whatchall think?

They all ponder this and, the speaker being a guy renowned as a deep thinker, they all figure he must be right.  So they go along with him.

And this happened in EVERY STATE!  I mean, what are the odds, really?

Is that kind of what you think must have happened?


It appears you're now in competition with Stephen King.:) :laugh:
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: elmerfudd on March 03, 2012, 05:33:54 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on March 02, 2012, 01:13:56 PM
It appears you're now in competition with Stephen King.:) :laugh:

I would say that an assertion that secession was over tariffs, not slavery, is worthy of the kind of fantasy Stephen King writes, too. 
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: hokiewoodchuck on March 03, 2012, 07:05:20 AM
Aw hell...lets just say it. We here in the south can't stand that yankee accent and still don't and THAT is what started it......and keep scratchin' that itch and we will be doing it all over again......just sayin'.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Shooterman on March 03, 2012, 07:25:32 AM
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 03, 2012, 05:33:54 AM
I would say that an assertion that secession was over tariffs, not slavery, is worthy of the kind of fantasy Stephen King writes, too. 

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!
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: elmerfudd on March 07, 2012, 08:45:23 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on March 03, 2012, 07:25:32 AM
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 (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 (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 (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 (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. 



Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Shooterman on March 07, 2012, 09:40:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: elmerfudd on March 07, 2012, 11:50:00 PM
Quote from: Shooterman on March 07, 2012, 09:40:15 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Eyesabide on May 15, 2012, 09:41:51 PM
Yes, the south could have won. If they could not have won, they would have lost quickly.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on June 24, 2012, 01:30:36 PM
Quote from: Eyesabide on May 15, 2012, 09:41:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Annoying Armed Conservative on July 05, 2012, 04:47:39 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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: tbone0106 on July 06, 2012, 02:57:38 PM
Quote from: AnnoyingArmedConservative on July 05, 2012, 04:47:39 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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: kramarat on July 06, 2012, 03:44:16 PM
I always thought it was because democrats were greedy and lazy. But what do I know?

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html (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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: bluelieu on July 11, 2012, 04:51:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: BILLY Defiant on July 13, 2012, 12:02:37 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
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on July 13, 2012, 11:56:06 PM
Quote from: Bad water BILLY on July 13, 2012, 12:02:37 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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on July 14, 2012, 05:44:33 AM
Quote from: AnnoyingArmedConservative on July 05, 2012, 04:47:39 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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: skuttlebutt on July 31, 2012, 12:33:43 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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on July 31, 2012, 03:10:23 AM
Quote from: skuttlebutt on July 31, 2012, 12:33:43 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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: skuttlebutt on July 31, 2012, 03:29:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on August 01, 2012, 04:27:49 AM
Quote from: skuttlebutt on July 31, 2012, 03:29:45 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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: kramarat on August 01, 2012, 11:42:27 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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on August 01, 2012, 11:47:04 PM
Quote from: kramarat on August 01, 2012, 11:42:27 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".
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: kramarat on August 02, 2012, 02:01:02 AM
Quote from: mdgiles on August 01, 2012, 11:47:04 PM
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:
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: RevStan on November 16, 2012, 02:59:35 PM
Well!! They didn't lets just sve the south today :thumbup:
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Darth Fife on December 24, 2012, 12:23:14 PM
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on February 11, 2012, 12:42:01 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

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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on January 06, 2013, 03:54:28 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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Mountainshield on February 08, 2013, 02:45:43 AM
Quote from: mdgiles on January 06, 2013, 03:54:28 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.

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 :)
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Mountainshield on February 08, 2013, 08:07:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on February 26, 2013, 07:03:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: simpsonofpg on March 13, 2013, 06:06:00 AM
We didn't lose we ran out of bullets.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: simpsonofpg on March 29, 2013, 02:25:16 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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on April 23, 2013, 06:09:26 AM
Quote from: simpsonofpg on March 29, 2013, 02:25:16 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.
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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Mountainshield on April 23, 2013, 08:04:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Solar on April 23, 2013, 11:14:57 PM
Quote from: Mountainshield on April 23, 2013, 08:04:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Walter Josh on May 07, 2013, 05:05:22 AM
Rowan Helper (1829-1909), a Southern Abolitionist born in North Carolina and educated in Economics, wrote "The Impending Crisis" in 1857. He cogently and forcefully argued that slavery was doomed for economic reasons; not because it was a moral evil.
Using graphs and statistics, he empirically demonstrated that land values, manufacturing rates and agricultural production were rising in the North but were stagnant/declining in the South. Why?
Because cotton production was land, manpower and water intensive; three costly and scarce resources. He argued that the South needed to encourage mechanization (Capital) to replace manpower(Labor); changes that were already on the horizon. Rowan accepted Adam Smith's dictum that free labor was efficient while slave labor was not. He also controversially proposed that land devoted to cotton production be restricted via taxation. In effect, the South was pricing itself out of the British Textile Market due to the rising cost of cotton production. Rowan was clairvoyant, as within 15 years, the great mills in Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester would be supplied by cheaper cotton from West Bengal. Rand Paul understates his case!
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on May 08, 2013, 02:15:45 AM
Perhaps the smartest thing the South could have done, would have been to agree to compensated abolition. I don't think it was even a question of being economically smart. I think the South fell in live with the "Lord of the Manor" lifestyle that the Southern Gentry lived, and the Southern population in general aspired to.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on May 10, 2013, 06:58:47 AM
Quote from: Mountainshield on April 23, 2013, 08:04:19 PM
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.

Although I agree with your conclusion, it doesn't make sense to blame social darwinism for the preservation of slavery, an institution that has existed throughout all of human history.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Darth Fife on May 24, 2013, 11:30:17 PM
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on February 11, 2012, 12:42:01 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

The 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
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: TboneAgain on May 28, 2013, 12:57:23 PM
Quote from: Darth Fife on May 24, 2013, 11:30:17 PM
The 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

Good 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?"
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Dad on June 21, 2013, 01:02:46 PM
My Great Great Grandfather and his wife Martha. He served in the Union Army - Corporal, 7th Cavalry Western Virginia (West Virginia) during the Civil War.

(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m23/TLI-1969/CivilWarUnionArmyCorporalGreatGrandfather_zpsd13d2cba.jpg)

Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on June 24, 2013, 12:32:14 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on May 28, 2013, 12:57:23 PM
Good 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?"
It'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.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Partisan62 on June 26, 2013, 07:45:32 AM
Quote from: mdgiles on June 24, 2013, 12:32:14 AM
It'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.

There 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.



Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on June 27, 2013, 01:55:49 AM
Quote from: Partisan62 on June 26, 2013, 07:45:32 AM
There 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.
Uh, how about because they weren't fighting strangers from across the ocean, but their far more advanced neighbors to the north. As for the fighting in the South during the Revolutionary war, most of that fighting took place between different groups of colonials - Patriots versus Tories. With the patriots - with French help - just barely coming out on top. Which brings us to the main point. The Colonials won the war WITH VITAL SUPPORT FROM THE FRENCH. So which outside power was supposed to come to the Confederacy's aid. Great Britain? That would have meant war with the only other Anglo-Saxon power and possibly the loss of Canada. France? That would have driven the North into Great Britain's arms. Germany and Italy didn't exist, as such, yet. Russia? War with United States would have almost certainly cost them Alaska and they had no fleet equal to the US fleet, not to mention that Great Britain almost certainly would have come in on the North's side. The South, with their agrarian outlook, assumed that depriving the North and Europe of vital cotton would cause victory in their favor. The industrial North and Britain, simply looked for another source of the material -Egypt and india - and fell back on supplies of cotton they had warehoused over prior years.

Okay, last but not least; we have a monstrous, all powerful government, due to the ironclad support that the Solid South gave to the Northern Democratic political machines. Together theses two were the backbone of both Wilson and FDR.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: daidalos on June 27, 2013, 12:39:51 PM
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on February 11, 2012, 12:42:01 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

Lee'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.



Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on June 28, 2013, 12:18:14 AM
Quote from: daidalos on June 27, 2013, 12:39:51 PM
Lee'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.
I wonder why that, is even assumed. The South had an immense Achilles Heel - it's slave population. Did you think the North was going to quietly fold it's tents and go away? If the South had won, there was absolutely no reason, for the North to prevent the John Brown types from smuggling arms South. What the South often forgets is that, until they seceded, the US government had protected their institution of slavery. Even going so far as to intrude into Northern states territory, to enforce laws which carried no weight in the free states. And even if the South did win temporary recognition by the European states. That didn't mean alliances or support from the European states. Nothing worse than sharing a continent, with a neighbor bent on revenge. One last thing, how long do you think the Confederacy would have lasted containing only the eleven states that seceded?
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Walter Josh on June 28, 2013, 05:09:53 AM
mdgiles, w/respect.
You ask, "Which outside power was supposed to have come to the aid
of 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 landing
as 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/the
Austrians, 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 far
differently today.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: walkstall on June 28, 2013, 08:16:26 AM
New 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/ (http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20130628/US--Gettysburg-Mapping.the.Battlefield/)
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on June 30, 2013, 10:59:02 AM
Quote from: Walter Josh on June 28, 2013, 05:09:53 AM
mdgiles, w/respect.
You ask, "Which outside power was supposed to have come to the aid
of 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 landing
as 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/the
Austrians, 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 far
differently today.
Please explain what Great Britain had to gain by supporting the South? And 45,000 whole regulars, against a Union army of over 600,000?  And war with the Union gave all of Great Britain's enemies someone to ally with against her. As for cotton, if it was so vital, why didn't Britain go to war over it. They had gone to war over sugar before. Britain as I noted, had already stockpiled supplies of American cotton, which they supplemented with supplies from Egypt, and supplies seized by advancing Union troops.In addition, though the British upper classes, felt some sympathy with the "aristocratic" South, the British middle classes despised the slave holders of the South. It shouldn't be forgotten that much of the effort that wiped out slavery around the world came from Great Britain. And the South couldn't get rid of slavery, or why were they at war. A point made by one of the Confederate leaders, when at the end, in desperation, they were going to enlist slaves.   
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on June 30, 2013, 11:03:05 AM
Quote from: walkstall on June 28, 2013, 08:16:26 AM
New 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/ (http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20130628/US--Gettysburg-Mapping.the.Battlefield/)
Which makes his decision even worse. To attack when you're not sure of the terrain, or the enemies numbers? The Japanese during WW2, suffered from what they described later as "Victory Disease". They had won so often, they begun to believe they would always win.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Walter Josh on July 01, 2013, 02:56:33 AM
mdgiles,
As for, what would Britain gain?
1.)  a natural ally in the South.
2.)  defeat of a rising power (same reason they went to war in 1914).
3.)  revenge for Yorktown and New Orleans.
Britain's Navy was key. She could put 250,000 troops in Canada very
quickly and blockade all the eastern seaports simultaneously. The vital
ingredient for the North was generalship not numbers, and as the early
days of the war demonstrated, hardly a strong point for the North. As for
slavery, it was a political issue in Britain and hardly an issue of passion
for working class labor.   
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on July 01, 2013, 08:34:53 AM
Quote from: Walter Josh on July 01, 2013, 02:56:33 AM
mdgiles,
As for, what would Britain gain?
1.)  a natural ally in the South.
2.)  defeat of a rising power (same reason they went to war in 1914).
3.)  revenge for Yorktown and New Orleans.
Britain's Navy was key. She could put 250,000 troops in Canada very
quickly and blockade all the eastern seaports simultaneously. The vital
ingredient for the North was generalship not numbers, and as the early
days of the war demonstrated, hardly a strong point for the North. As for
slavery, it was a political issue in Britain and hardly an issue of passion
for working class labor.
1.) The North was a far better ally, than the South.
2.)The US had been a semi ally of Britain, on a number of occasions. The Monroe Doctrine and the anti slavery patrols, to name just two.
3.)As I noted, relationships between the US and Great Britain had long been on a good terms. After all, what more natural ally than the US - who had no ambitions on the Continent, nor any imperial ambitions - unlike France and Russia - and also had a similar form of government. Besides Britain entering might have had the effect of driving the two sides together.
Britain didn't have 250,000 troops. It had always been the policy of Great Britain to have a small professional army. Even in there overseas colonies such as India, they used mercenary troops. They could have stripped their empire of troops and mercenaries - and then watched it snapped up by her rivals. The Union army reached 600,000 by early 1862, and it would get larger. Actually Britain had settled their own slavery issue, by abolition in 1833. After that point Britain often went to war to stamp out slavery, in Borneo for example.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Walter Josh on July 01, 2013, 11:18:02 AM
mdgiles; continuing our mutually enlightening discussion.
As for your last #2 point , " The USA had been a semi ally of Britain."
Hopes and wishes. As Von Bismarck observed. "Great nations have
interests, not allies."
Your assertion that Britain did not have at least 250,000 regulars
in 1860 is arrant nonsense. In fact, she had some 400,000 dispersed
throughout her Empire. Her critical advantage was the Royal Navy.
Case in point. In 1914, within 6 weeks of declaring war, Britain landed
325,000 regulars in France.
The notion that a force of some 600,000 Northerners, led by assorted
Union buffoonery; while confronted by British Canada and the South;
would be victorious, is the triumph of fantasy over reality.
Lincoln, to his great credit and wisdom, understood this grave threat
to the Union. As such, his Emancipation Proclamation was a master
stroke of political genius.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on July 02, 2013, 03:59:52 AM
Quote from: Walter Josh on July 01, 2013, 11:18:02 AM
mdgiles; continuing our mutually enlightening discussion.
As for your last #2 point , " The USA had been a semi ally of Britain."
Hopes and wishes. As Von Bismarck observed. "Great nations have
interests, not allies."
And the interests of Great Britain were far more in line with those of the North, than Those of the South. Besides cotton, and a much smaller market, what exactly did the South have to offer. And if the didn't like being part of the US, why exactly would they have enjoyed being an economic colony of Great Britain?
QuoteYour assertion that Britain did not have at least 250,000 regulars
in 1860 is arrant nonsense. In fact, she had some 400,000 dispersed
"Essentially, the British had an army of 220,000 regulars, 120,000 militiamen and raised about 250,000 volunteers in the early 1860's. The regular army at home was stable at about 100,000 men, India took about 60-70,000 men (plus 150,000 Indian regulars and about 70-80,000 irregulars), the Med about 20,000 and Canada/ North America about 20,000, with the remaining 10-20,000 mostly split between a division in South Africa and a division in New Zealand (the Army Corps that fought in China in the early 1860's was drawn from the British-Indian Army).
The only other colonial force of note is the fairly large Canadian Militia, which kept ca 67,000 trained and equipped men. Other colonies had militias but they were generally small (although NZ and Victoria had mobilised theirs for NZ) throughout her Empire."
http://www.geocities.com/littlegreenmen.geo/misc.htm (http://www.geocities.com/littlegreenmen.geo/misc.htm)
QuoteHer critical advantage was the Royal Navy.
And what exactly was going to happen to the rest of Britain colonies, as the fleet sailed off to fight the North?
QuoteCase in point. In 1914, within 6 weeks of declaring war, Britain landed
325,000 regulars in France.
And the British had steadily built up their forces as they were fighting all over the world. But in 1860, most of their fighting was in India and that was done by the Indian Army.
QuoteThe notion that a force of some 600,000 Northerners, led by assorted
Union buffoonery; while confronted by British Canada and the South;
would be victorious, is the triumph of fantasy over reality.
Are you by any chance British, because you suffer from a malady common to people that don't understand anything about the American Civil War. I call it Lee fascination. For some reason beating a few incompetents in Northern Virginia, was supposed to offset the fact that the Confederacy was pretty much losing everywhere else. The battle in the Western theater was one ongoing disaster for the Confederacy.
QuoteLincoln, to his great credit and wisdom, understood this grave threat
to the Union. As such, his Emancipation Proclamation was a master
stroke of political genius.
It made the Southern position plan and untenable. By supporting the South, you were supporting continued slavery. The emancipation also had the asset of clarifying the position of slaves who had fled their masters, in those areas not yet under Union occupation.

One more thing about the "buffoonery" of those generals. The thing was their tactics hadn't caught up with the technology. The Generals in the Civil War, on both sides, had fought in the Mexican War, when the US was still using smoothbore muskets. The rifles of the Civil War era were infinitely more dangerous, and made Napoleonic tactics suicide. In dealing with the rifle, they were like the generals of WW1 dealing with machine guns and advanced artillery. Also modern industry had made the recovery ability of armies, much, much greater. Before the American Civil war it was not uncommon for good generals to destroy whole armies. During the Civil War that only happened three times - and it was the much maligned generalship of US Grant that accomplished that.
Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: Walter Josh on July 03, 2013, 04:01:02 AM
mdgiles, fair points.
The essence of what I'm asserting is real simple:The USA was a 72 year old in 1860 and hardly a threat to
Great Britain either economically or militarily. To believe otherwise, is beyond fantasy.The South provided
the critical raw material that made Britain prosperous and powerful. As such, the South was her natural ally.
(It is true that the plantations of East Bengal would supplant Southern cotton but not until 1870).
In contrast, the North, being industrialized rather than agrarian, produced largely finished goods which made her a competitor of Britain rather than a supplier of the vital commodity that kept her mills humming.
Leaving aside your numbers game, Britain has access to whatever troop levels she needed, stone cold reality, as the Great War demonstrated.
You cannot seem to grasp the power that the Royal Navy gave Britain, which is why Mahan insisted the military priority for an emergent USA in 1900 must always be the Navy before the Army.
No, I'm not British (no such critter) nor English; I'm German born and no fan of any of the Generals of the Civil War on either side.
My comment about the Emancipation Proclamation is related to an earlier post about Rowan Helper's "Impending Crises". He correctly asserted that cotton retarded economic growth in the South as it was land, manpower and water intensive, drawing down costly resources to the detriment of industry. He also agreed w/Adam Smith that labor freely contracted in the marketplace was always more efficient than labor coerced through slavery. Hence he supported the abolition of slavery, for economic not moral reasons, as a means of breaking the stranglehold the Plantation Class held in the South.
Lincoln's Proclamation was a political master stroke, as it gave the North the moral high ground, preventing Great Britain, who had abolished slavery in 1833,  from aligning itself with the South. W/o Britain. the South could not win.
Great discussion. Well done.

Title: Re: Could the South have won?
Post by: mdgiles on July 03, 2013, 05:49:18 AM
Quote from: Walter Josh on July 03, 2013, 04:01:02 AM
mdgiles, fair points.
The essence of what I'm asserting is real simple:The USA was a 72 year old in 1860 and hardly a threat to
Great Britain either economically or militarily. To believe otherwise, is beyond fantasy.The South provided
the critical raw material that made Britain prosperous and powerful. As such, the South was her natural ally.
The British could get their raw materials from almost anywhere. As you have noted they were in the process of building the worlds greatest empire. But the US had the makings of a pretty good ally, especially if the Europeans got boisterous, as they had a habit of doing. And of course even if they weren't officially allied, the English speaking Americans secured the Atlantic front for the British.
Quote(It is true that the plantations of East Bengal would supplant Southern cotton but not until 1870).
In contrast, the North, being industrialized rather than agrarian, produced largely finished goods which made her a competitor of Britain rather than a supplier of the vital commodity that kept her mills humming.
Why should the British care? America was in the process of settling a continent - which was where all their produce was going to go. In addition, Britain had a captive empire to trade with, which more than offset any gain the would have gotten from recognizing the South. Relations with the US were generally good, why were the British going to exchange that for another enemy?
QuoteLeaving aside your numbers game, Britain has access to whatever troop levels she needed, stone cold reality, as the Great War demonstrated.
Actually she didn't as she had to strip much of the empire to raise troops for the Sudan battles and the Boer War. When WW1 started she first used volunteers, and eventually ended up going to conscription. Even then she needed the French to provide the manpower they were lacking. If it hadn't been for the Russians on the Eastern Front the British/French would have been completely outmanned - as they nearly were when Russia left the war.
QuoteYou cannot seem to grasp the power that the Royal Navy gave Britain, which is why Mahan insisted the military priority for an emergent USA in 1900 must always be the Navy before the Army.
And you don't seem to grasp that the Royal Navy was scattered half way around the world, and in fact during the Civil War the US Navy grew to one of the largest navies in the world. It was only after the war that - having no overseas possessions to worry about - that the US allowed our Navy to collapse into obsolescence ( US admirals tried to go back to sail?).
QuoteNo, I'm not British (no such critter) nor English; I'm German born and no fan of any of the Generals of the Civil War on either side.
Well your Prussian generals surely did. They paid a great deal of attention to both sides use of the tellegraph and railroads. And right, they've had devolution haven't they.
QuoteMy comment about the Emancipation Proclamation is related to an earlier post about Rowan Helper's "Impending Crises". He correctly asserted that cotton retarded economic growth in the South as it was land, manpower and water intensive, drawing down costly resources to the detriment of industry.
Indeed Cotton farming actually stripped the land of nutrients, which explains the South's desperate need to expand into new territories.
QuoteHe also agreed w/Adam Smith that labor freely contracted in the marketplace was always more efficient than labor coerced through slavery. Hence he supported the abolition of slavery, for economic not moral reasons, as a means of breaking the stranglehold the Plantation Class held in the South.
It didn't take much, for Northerners to notice how non plantation farmers had been pushed to the margins in the South; to make them fierce "Free Soil" advocates. Also I wonder if the South ever considered using their slaves for industrial purposes before the Civil War forced that necessity upon them.
QuoteLincoln's Proclamation was a political master stroke, as it gave the North the moral high ground, preventing Great Britain, who had abolished slavery in 1833,  from aligning itself with the South. W/o Britain. the South could not win.
Just like in the American Revolution, its proved almost impossible to win without outside help.
QuoteGreat discussion. Well done.
You too, even if you're "mistaken" on some points?  :smile: :wink: