Was the slaughter of the Civil War worth its result? (Mexico, 60's)

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by DrummerBoy

Contributing to the needless slaughter was Jeff Davis. He should have surrendered after the losses at Gettysburgh and Vicksburgh in the first week of July, 1863. There was no way they were gonna win after their territory was cut in half from the Yanks controlling the Mighty Miss. River. But no: they fought for almost two more years, wasting more lives.
And certainly...if they didn't have the sense to concede after Vicks/Gettysburgh, they really shoulda quit after Sherman sacked Atlanta in the Fall of 1864!! C'mon guys, what am I missing here? But no, the South continues to fight for 9 more months!
Idjuts.

While I see the point you are trying to make, it also very much argues from result. Not trying to be a smart-a$$, but they didn't have a history book to refer to in deciding what to do next!

But seriously, yes, after Gettysburg and Vickburg (on the same day no less!), there is the air of inevitably in retrospect that then it was the beginning of the end. However, as you seen to allude to, there was still at least a decent chance of holding on until after the 1864 elections and the North voting Lincoln out of office in favor of a "Peace Democrat." Of course, all that ended after Atlanta, but keep in mind still that there was still hope for some kind of settlement for instance, what with Grant incurring extremely heavy losses in his campaign and earning the nickname of "The Butcher", many northerners were again growing sick of the war and the losses.

Finally, there was the hope that by enlisting blacks as combat soldiers, in exchange for emancipation (an offer for emancipation in exchange for recognition from England and France was offered), the South could at least gain a stalemate (which was all it needed to "win."). So it wasn't quite so cut and dried as it might seem today.

But anyway, I gotta get back to work! LOL

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by xiansheng_g

The Civil War was fought over whether or not States had the right to dissolve themselves from the Union. The tipping point of this dissolution was the issue of slavery.

I do believe that you have hitched the cart in front of the horse.

Neither of these issues was mutually exclusive. Furthermore, the "freeing of the slaves" was a military device to decimate the economic force of the Confederacy.

That isn't accurate in the least bit. There was great pressure from the "Radical" wing of the Republican Party both within the Cabinet, the Congress and the military to abolish slavery at first instance. It was Lincoln and Lincoln pretty much alone who kept a tight rein on the emancipation proclivities of his Party both as a result of a objection to emancipation without a workable plan for African repatriation and out of the military necessity to keep the boarder states within the Union.

See Freemont and Butler's early moves towards emancipating slaves, just to name two.

[nightbird47]

Originally Posted by DrummerBoy

No way was the loss of 600,000 people worth the end of slavery and the re-joining of the Union. Thing is, slavery would have ended anyway within 5-8 years due to increasing social pressure and economic sanctions from the North. Also, how many of you guys know that only one in about 10 cotton growers had more than 3-5 slaves? Again, it was a case of rich, old white guys--the large plantation owners--causing a war since they didn't want to dent their pocket books. Lincoln should have just promised that he wouldn't lift a finger to abolish slavery after the South seceded. Then, even if they still left the Union, Lincoln could have just imposed economic sanctions which would have forced them back into the fold within 5 years or so. Despite what they believed, the South was not really as self-sufficient as they thought.
Contributing to the needless slaughter was Jeff Davis. He should have surrendered after the losses at Gettysburgh and Vicksburgh in the first week of July, 1863. There was no way they were gonna win after their territory was cut in half from the Yanks controlling the Mighty Miss. River. But no: they fought for almost two more years, wasting more lives.
And certainly...if they didn't have the sense to concede after Vicks/Gettysburgh, they really shoulda quit after Sherman sacked Atlanta in the Fall of 1864!! C'mon guys, what am I missing here? But no, the South continues to fight for 9 more months!
Idjuts.

Hinesight is 100 percent. But it doesn't take into account the mindset of the time. The south had staged a revolution. You don't ever easily give up the fight when you stage a revolution until your absolutely sure there is nothing more you can do to save yourself. The leadership knew how things were, but you can't put 2011 internet news spread standards on the time, or even 1950 early tv standards. News dribbled in. Few people out in the boonies knew much of what was happening The leadership could not have continued if the soldiers had not been in favor of it.

In reality, if you really want to employ hinesight, the south should have never left the union since they never had a chance. No navy vrs a strong and active Northern navy. A shortage of potential bodies to fight compared to the north, which never even activated a couple of whole divisions. Lack of trade and funds to buy military supplies unless they could keep their ports open. They believed the European parties would support them, but in reality it wouldn't happen unless they showed they could win on their own AND there was nothing which would interfere with normal business the North would do. In reality they lost the day the first shot was fired. But if your there and wound up in the hoopla and ferver and issues you don't see that picture. Historians a hundred years later do.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by nightbird47

No navy vrs a strong and active Northern navy.

You raise an interesting point. The war was effectively over once the U.S. implemented Operation Anaconda, the complete blockade of southern sea ports. Today, the U.S. very conceivably would just maintained the blockade and economic sanctions which overtime would have simply starved the south into submission with minimal loss of life on both sides.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Today, the U.S. very conceivably would just maintained the blockade and economic sanctions which overtime would have simply starved the south into submission with minimal loss of life on both sides.

That's assuming the rebels wouldn't have made appropriate responses such as turning more agriculture over to food production and building more ironclads to keep some ports open.

Such a policy would also have turned the military initiative over to the rebels; who knows what they might've done had they not been under constant threat of invasion.

[DrummerBoy]

Originally Posted by nightbird47

Hinesight is 100 percent. But it doesn't take into account the mindset of the time. The south had staged a revolution. You don't ever easily give up the fight when you stage a revolution until your absolutely sure there is nothing more you can do to save yourself. The leadership knew how things were, but you can't put 2011 internet news spread standards on the time, or even 1950 early tv standards. News dribbled in. Few people out in the boonies knew much of what was happening The leadership could not have continued if the soldiers had not been in favor of it.

In reality, if you really want to employ hinesight, the south should have never left the union since they never had a chance. No navy vrs a strong and active Northern navy. A shortage of potential bodies to fight compared to the north, which never even activated a couple of whole divisions. Lack of trade and funds to buy military supplies unless they could keep their ports open. They believed the European parties would support them, but in reality it wouldn't happen unless they showed they could win on their own AND there was nothing which would interfere with normal business the North would do. In reality they lost the day the first shot was fired. But if your there and wound up in the hoopla and ferver and issues you don't see that picture. Historians a hundred years later do.

It's spelled "hindsight."

[kitsunegames]

Originally Posted by nightbird47

In reality, if you really want to employ hindsight, the south should have never left the union since they never had a chance.

That assumes the North were like barbarian savages eagerly swooping in with overwhelming numbers, with the primitive thinking of "might makes right". "Assimilate, resistance is futile." "Try leaving and we'll pummel you into submission then chain you to the chair."

[Electron]

Originally Posted by kitsunegames

That assumes the North were like barbarian savages eagerly swooping in with overwhelming numbers, with the primitive thinking of "might makes right". "Assimilate, resistance is futile." "Try leaving and we'll pummel you into submission then chain you to the chair."

Add the targeting and starvation of civilians, along with destruction of crops, livestock and real property and you have a pretty good picture of what Sheridan did to the Shenandoah Valley in late '64,


Was it worth it? No, if you're anyone who didn't have ties to big northern businesses and railroads.

I have often wondered about the results of the war and their affects (effects?) on emancipated slaves. It seems that elsewhere around the globe where there was a gradual emancipation, race relations tend to be better. Maybe that isn't true, maybe I can only see the real picture of what is here at home. I just see a lot of indicators that lead me to believe that immediate emancipation was a bad idea. Those who had been rounded up by rival tribes and sold into slavery had only their instincts to fall back on. We see similarites between that, I do anyway, and what happened in Iraq after suddenly being liberated. Those people didn't know what to do, so they revert to the tribal warfare that was their instinct. Consequently, big Uncle Sugar comes in to play the role of Daddy, and the cycle continues. Dammit. Ever have those moments where you know what you want to say, but just don't know how to say it?????

[NHartphotog]

If we had defeated the Federalist monster that is currently bankrupting our nation, it would have been. Since State's Rights lost, obviously it was an unmitigated disaster that signaled the end of the free nation the Founding Fathers gave us.

BTW, slavery would have ended of its own accord here, just like it ended everywhere else in the developed world without war.

[nightbird47]

Originally Posted by kitsunegames

That assumes the North were like barbarian savages eagerly swooping in with overwhelming numbers, with the primitive thinking of "might makes right". "Assimilate, resistance is futile." "Try leaving and we'll pummel you into submission then chain you to the chair."

There had been nothing to suggest the North would have let them go. It was the biggest dare and usually it gets a response. It was the succession which drove the quick creation of many enthusiastic Northern military. If the south had not succeeded and just let things roll, its possible they might have gotted more results, but the problem was both sides were becoming polarized and unwilling to bend by the time it began.

And it was the first modern "total war". The strategy became to push the civilians by the previously mentioned destruction of crops, economic strangulation and untimently Sherman. The aim was to starve out the south and take away their economy, along with the policies of armies living off the land. It can't be looked at like a war between nations because it wasn't. Civil wars or revolution bring out the worse in each side and the more visious of behaviors.

Consider in the Revolutionary war the kinds of things done to "the other side" by civilians on civilian violence, and the direct attacks against towns suspected of rebel ties. We don't teach this in history class but it was a much more violent war for civilians than most understand. The civil war was a revolution from the other point of view and likely close in the level of personally aimed violence. Anyone who knew something of their history (this being a mere 70 or so years since that war, likely) could have guessed.

Consider the time period between now and Vietnam and the comparisons made between them by ordinary people. These are made because its still in memory and people see similarities. They certainly would have had that in mind back then too.