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.
Losing is quite often the result when a smaller force is attacked by a much larger force. Many people seem to assume that the armies of the Confederacy and the US were fairly equal. In fact, the Union Army was anywhere from 2 to almost 3 times as large as the Confederate Army, depending on the times. But the Union forces lost almost 50% more soldiers than the Rebs. They simply had more raw numbers to throw in the battles than the Confederates.
there is a reason, the South were fighting on their turf. They were familiar, it's their home. When you have foreign troops coming to your town to burn crops, bridges, homes and rape then the civilians get involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
It is a little known fact of history that Robert E Lee's battle plans for the invasion of the US were lost by a courier and recovered by the Union forces. With full knowledge of Lee's plan , the Union army still lost more soldiers than the Rebs and couldn't defeat them at the Battle of Antietam, despite having over twice the number of forces as Lee, AND Lee's battle plans. The battle was strategically a draw, but as the Rebs withdrew first it was proclaimed a Union victory. The proclamation of a victory over the Confederacy gave Lincoln the confidence to make the Emancipation Proclamation, and as a result the British and French decided not to recognize and aid the Confederacy as was being contemplated.
he strange quirks of history. What happens if Lee's plans are not found by the Union side, they are routed by Lee's forces, and Lee marches on DC?
I don't know about that, but when the other side comes to your turf and destroys homes, town, bridges and burns crops then you have to stop playing defense and get on offense to stop the aggression.
Seriously. You can't compare the racism in the north versus the south.
Seriously it is apparent that you do not know much about racism in the North. It is not only in the Sourh by any means, Even the civil rights leaders talked about racism in the north.
there is a reason, the South were fighting on their turf. They were familiar, it's their home. When you have foreign troops coming to your town to burn crops, bridges, homes and rape then the civilians get involved.
I don't know about that, but when the other side comes to your turf and destroys homes, town, bridges and burns crops then you have to stop playing defense and get on offense to stop the aggression.
You never win a war by playing defense.
The Battle of Antietam was on Union soil, 70 miles from Washington DC. It was the Confederate invasion of Maryland. It almost succeeded, and likely would have excepting a major piece of dumb luck to the Union forces.
Losing is quite often the result when a smaller force is attacked by a much larger force. Many people seem to assume that the armies of the Confederacy and the US were fairly equal. In fact, the Union Army was anywhere from 2 to almost 3 times as large as the Confederate Army, depending on the times. But the Union forces lost almost 50% more soldiers than the Rebs. They simply had more raw numbers to throw in the battles than the Confederates.
It is a little known fact of history that Robert E Lee's battle plans for the invasion of the US were lost by a courier and recovered by the Union forces. With full knowledge of Lee's plan , the Union army still lost more soldiers than the Rebs and couldn't defeat them at the Battle of Antietam, despite having over twice the number of forces as Lee, AND Lee's battle plans. The battle was strategically a draw, but as the Rebs withdrew first it was proclaimed a Union victory. The proclamation of a victory over the Confederacy gave Lincoln the confidence to make the Emancipation Proclamation, and as a result the British and French decided not to recognize and aid the Confederacy as was being contemplated.
The strange quirks of history. What happens if Lee's plans are not found by the Union side, they are routed by Lee's forces, and Lee marches on DC?
Lee's battle plans for the invasion of the U.S. sort of undercuts the argument that the South just wanted to be left alone. As I recall, Battle of Gettysburg was fought in a northern state as well. Hmmm?
Lee was a brilliant military tactician. No argument there. He was also a traitor.
Not only did the North have more soldiers, they also had more industrial capacity.
Back in my younger days, when I would frequent drinking establishments rather than online forums on Saturday nights, I can recall times where feisty men pursued altercations with men who promptly beat the crap out of them.
"You think you're tough, don't you?" They'd throw a punch and then promptly get a beat down from someone who turned out to be tough enough.
The South picked a fight with a tougher team and then got whooped.
The Battle of Antietam was on Union soil, 70 miles from Washington DC. It was the Confederate invasion of Maryland. It almost succeeded, and likely would have excepting a major piece of dumb luck to the Union forces.
of all the battles in the Civil War, what % were fought in the South and what % were fought in the borders states of the North?
all the major losses from crops, homes, bridges, and towns happened in the South.
Lee's battle plans for the invasion of the U.S. sort of undercuts the argument that the South just wanted to be left alone. As I recall, Battle of Gettysburg was fought in a northern state as well. Hmmm?
Lee was a brilliant military tactician. No argument there. He was also a traitor.
Not only did the North have more soldiers, they also had more industrial capacity.
Back in my younger days, when I would frequent drinking establishments rather than online forums on Saturday nights, I can recall times where feisty men pursued altercations with men who promptly beat the crap out of them.
"You think you're tough, don't you?" They'd throw a punch and then promptly get a beat down from someone who turned out to be tough enough.
The South picked a fight with a tougher team and then got whooped.
It's over now. Time to move on.
The South did not want to take over the North. They wanted to force a treaty and recognition of the South.
As to Lee being a traitor, before the Civil War and the rise of federalism, the US was understood more as the united STATES of America, that being a union of sovereign states bound together for strategic reasons .Lee's allegiance remained with his state, as was considered proper by many in that time. His state was where his loyalty lay. His state was a member of a union, but he was a citizen of his state first and foremost. People today have lost the understanding of what the original union was all about, and how people regarding the union as a whole vs how they regarded their state.
And your analogy is flawed. A more apropos one is 5 guys beating up 2 guys and then strutting around thinking themselves tough because sheer numbers won the day for them. Only , excepting some dumb luck, the 2 guys would have won in the case of the Confederacy.
Last edited by wallflash; 10-14-2017 at 09:13 PM..
of all the battles in the Civil War, what % were fought in the South and what % were fought in the borders states of the North?
all the major losses from crops, homes, bridges, and towns happened in the South.
And this has what to do with the fact that about the only thing that kept Lee from marching on DC and forcing a treaty was a weird piece of dumb luck that the Union forces were still almost unable to capitalize on?
Lee's battle plans for the invasion of the U.S. sort of undercuts the argument that the South just wanted to be left alone. As I recall, Battle of Gettysburg was fought in a northern state as well. Hmmm?
Lee was a brilliant military tactician. No argument there. He was also a traitor.
Not only did the North have more soldiers, they also had more industrial capacity.
Back in my younger days, when I would frequent drinking establishments rather than online forums on Saturday nights, I can recall times where feisty men pursued altercations with men who promptly beat the crap out of them.
"You think you're tough, don't you?" They'd throw a punch and then promptly get a beat down from someone who turned out to be tough enough.
The South picked a fight with a tougher team and then got whooped.
It's over now. Time to move on.
you are clueless......that's like saying we fought the aggressors Japanese Empire in WW 2 and push them back all the way to Japan so we have an excuse to conquer Japan.
in war, you have to take the fight to your enemy if you want them to stop the aggression.....this is war 101.....you wanted the South to just play defense?
we are only going to defend ourselves if you come to our towns and our turf.....we won't come to you after you keep destroying our homes, crops, bridges, and towns. LOL
Lee's battle plans for the invasion of the U.S. sort of undercuts the argument that the South just wanted to be left alone. As I recall, Battle of Gettysburg was fought in a northern state as well. Hmmm?
Lee was a brilliant military tactician. No argument there. He was also a traitor.
Not only did the North have more soldiers, they also had more industrial capacity.
Back in my younger days, when I would frequent drinking establishments rather than online forums on Saturday nights, I can recall times where feisty men pursued altercations with men who promptly beat the crap out of them.
"You think you're tough, don't you?" They'd throw a punch and then promptly get a beat down from someone who turned out to be tough enough.
The South picked a fight with a tougher team and then got whooped.
It's over now. Time to move on.
The highlighted came much later in the war. Try to pay attention. If they had been left alone to begin with. The war would never happened.
...
And your analogy is flawed. A more apropos one is 5 guys beating up 2 guys and then strutting around thinking themselves tough because sheer numbers won the day for them. Only , excepting some dumb luck, the 2 guys would have won in the case of the Confederacy.
Okay. We'll use your analogy.
2 Guys walk up to 5 guys and start a fight. The 2 guys hold their own for awhile, brilliant fighters that they are However, the tide turns and the 5 guys give the 2 guys a beat down.
Confederates didn't lose because of a stroke of bad luck. They lost because they picked a fight with a tougher team.
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.
