Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gorilla warfare would have eventually bankrupted the north.
It's true, you can't monkey around with gorilla warfare. The South could have aped the example of Spanish gorillas against Napoleon, which kept him from ever fully subduing the country. Southern gorillas would have driven a Union occupation army bananas.
It's true, you can't monkey around with gorilla warfare. The South could have aped the example of Spanish gorillas against Napoleon, which kept him from ever fully subduing the country. Southern gorillas would have driven a Union occupation army bananas.
Knowledge, lack of knowledge, and how we get knowledge
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital_Duck
too bad you ONLY know the propaganda nonsense that has been force fed to school kids by the Federalists ... Go on and believe your politicians and their deceit ..Comparable to the lies in the 60's about how Communists were not allowed to have religion ... yet there are many VERY old and active churches there.
and that is recent history not like history from well before communism which has conned so many into thinking they know something.
O.K., you say so many have been conned into thinking they know something. Please tell us what you know and how you came to know what you know. Explain to us how slavery did not represent the tyranny of whites over blacks. And yes, I do know, only a minority of whites had enough money to own slaves, but slavery as a system was generally supported by whites in the south.
Calling something "lies" without telling what you think the truth is amounts to name calling. It is childish and inflammatory, and doesn't advance the discussion.
The CIVIL WAR was not about the slavery of a people (which I whole wholeheartedly agree is wrong and was always wrong am not an advocate if imprisoning a people due to ethnic's)
WHAT IT WAS:
It was a Federalist government attack on a revenue of a people.
Even Abraham Lincoln was considering the Black people as a third class citizen.
There was NO LOVE there from Lincoln - none at all.
What was happening was this:
The south was getting VERY RICH selling cotton and cotton products to Europe
At that point in time the Northern States were more or less struggling financially (many poor people there)
The south did not want to give up profits by selling to the north cheaper than they could sell in Europe.
The Federalist government decided to add a tax on a property which was the foundation of the Souths profit - their purchased labor which was at that time called a property (the slave) was getting taxed through anger and an entitlement mentality supported by politics.
Before the war started - much of the southern plantations were already understanding and knowing that the Slave Era was coming to an end.
The Civil War was not about slaves but the taxation on slaves which were possessed.
FACT BE TOLD:
Domestic slavery was quite common in West Africa, although the Europeans organized the trade to a much greater magnitude and value. Free black slaveowners resided in states as north as New York and as far south as Florida, extending westward into Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Missouri. According to the federal census of 1830, free blacks owned more than 10,000 slaves in Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia. The majority of black slaveowners lived in Louisiana and planted sugar cane. (SOURCE)
Had Lincoln really wanted to give due respect to the Black American - things would been very different and much better for America as a whole.
(and a side note:
last place to officially rejoin the Union after the Civil War did so in about 1946 and it was a town in New York State)
I can't see such an idea coming from the top. If the Confederacy abandoned field armies in favor of partisan strikes, that would have been an admission of defeat, at least with regard to the idea that they had made a new nation. With a capitol, a president, a Congress and armed forces under civillian control, you have a nation. With independently operating guerilla bands employing terror tactics, you have a ongoing bloody chaos, but no nation. Jefferson Davis took himself, his office, and his idea of the legitimacy of the Confederacy far too seriously to ever abandon central control. With guerillas, you may provide central direction, but ultimate control always rests with the local leaders. In addition, the sanctioning of partisan bands by a government on the lam, means that they will not be able to pick and choose what sort of organizations result. Some will be idealistic partisans fighting for the cause, many others will be bandits, employing the cover of rebel patriotism to conduct criminal activities.
Davis would have had no stomach for that last, neither would have Robert E. Lee. Those were the two most influential people in the Confederacy. Lee would have been opposed on moral grounds, he is on record stating this. Davis would have ultimately foundered on the control issue, even if his fighting instincts were to never surrender.
Without field armies to oppose them, the Union forces could have gone wherever they wished, occupied whatever they wanted, freed all of the slaves they encountered and siezed control of the majority of Southern commercial assets. Guerillas could annoy them while they went about their business, but they could not stop them. Left unprotected by the partisans hiding in the hills or swamps, would be the women, elderly and children of the Confederacy. Irishtom may well be right about ex slaves being organized into anti partisan ranger regiments to police the areas infected by the holdouts.
I think in the end the south would have lost worse this way. The CSA government could have decentralized the army units, and the union troops would as said above, had what they wanted. Thought I don't think immediatly, as the results began the union occupiers would have turned to an ex-slave armed force to fight them, for they were nervous about arming slaves themselves. But eventually it could have come about and then the real civil war would set in. Grudges which would not ever be forgotten would be made. Atrocities on both sides would be done. The north would have had, eventually, to establish some sort of 'loyalist' government they knew would not be able to stop it, as adminestrators, or gone to more draconian tactics.
However it worked out it would be very very ugly. The lingering distrust of 'them' in some today would still be magnified to the extreme, and the personal feuds and payback created by sending locals with grudges after locals in rebellion would be just as alive now as then.
Last edited by nightbird47; 01-01-2012 at 11:34 AM..
Spell checkers only know its really a word... that's the easy part. Now one which really understood usage, that would be useful.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Knowledge, lack of knowledge, and how we get knowledge
