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.
In the beginning (first 2 years) the south had a supreme advantage in terms of troop superiority, experience, proficiency, leadership. In the end the North was able to overcome with money, manpower, machinery, and absolute territory domination.
Had the south had won Gettysburg and marched into the North (say just outside NYC) you likely would have seen will to fight end and negotiation started.
I have found this an interesting article, some of which I knew, other points that bring a new perspective. As example, I had no idea that North Carolina and Georgia withheld forces, instead building up arms and men from the army so they could strengthen their own State Militias.
Another one mentioned is that the political and civil service was strong in the north, but not in the south.
It's an interesting read. It's not the common narrative one hears, and perhaps reading this will give others a new perspective.
They ran out of money ... and yes, that was a common narrative one hears; the fact that they ran out of funds doesn't read as well.
It was over before it began. The North had the industrial advantage, the naval advantage, and the population advantage. You would have to be incredibly incompetent to lose..
I get your point.. but it kinda assumes that the South was trying to overwhelm the North.. but the South was fighting a war of extrication, not conquest.
They had to make the war too costly or demoralizing for Lincoln, not really out-gun the North. There were points in the war, where it did look like the people of the North might abandon the war & let the South leave. But obviously/ultimately, it wasn't enough for the cause of Confederate independence.. (peace)
In the beginning (first 2 years) the south had a supreme advantage in terms of troop superiority, experience, proficiency, leadership. In the end the North was able to overcome with money, manpower, machinery, and absolute territory domination.
Had the south had won Gettysburg and marched into the North (say just outside NYC) you likely would have seen will to fight end and negotiation started.
They wanted to withdraw from the Union they thought had gone corrupt. There's no negotiating that, just let 'em go independent, that's all.
They wanted to withdraw from the Union they thought had gone corrupt. There's no negotiating that, just let 'em go independent, that's all.
When the population centers of the north (NYC, Philly, Boston) are reading about distant battle field losses or victories that is one thing. Had they suffered a defeat on their own soil and seen a 150k man "rebel" army lead by General Lee camped out on the NYC horizon the entire will for the north to fight would have been broken.
Interesting post. If the south succeeded from the north...and they almost did, not so much militarily but they came close politically which I believe was their goal....and a primary reason for the incursion into Gettysburg...a victory putting Confederate forces within striking distance to Philadelphia would have been a political disaster for the Union and could have forced them to come to to the negotiating table....they realized the people in the north were tiring of the war too. There was growing anti-war sentiment with a growing Copperhead movement which included additional groups who opposed to conscription and emancipation—e.g., the Irish population in New York City, who feared that freed Southern blacks would come north and take jobs away.
I totally disagree the Confederacy could have mobilized their slaves immediately by guaranteeing them their freedom if they volunteered for a two year period and codified a system of compensation for the owners. This was a Huge issue in Kentucky and other border slave states which remained loyal to the union (in the beginning). These states didn't stay loyal to the Union to emancipate the slaves. They felt the Union Govt would be the best protector of their slave based labor systems...seriously they believed that. But more importantly places like Kentucky had a very conservative Victorian slave holding culture, the racial and social hierarchy were very rigid. As the war progressed it became more apparent that the ramifications of the war would be the emancipation of 4 million slaves.....By the end of the war the Union sentiment in that state collapsed and a big reason was enlisting slaves into Union regiments. Kentucky had the second largest African American Union regiments only behind Louisiana. Kentucky was a loyal Union State, but they did not celebrate the Union victories post war, but celebrated the Confederacy instead. The Union victory was too closely associated with African American progress for even the Union soldiers to celebrate the victory. So this would have been amplified in the deep south.
If the South won the war, North America would much more closely resemble the political instability and upheavals of Central and South America. The US became a much more powerful country after that treacherous period.
You'd think so right? But all it really boils down to is paying into a centralized federal fund so that the poorer communities can reap the benefits of those that are richer ... once you have everyone on the federal tit they go to step out of line, you threaten to withhold funds, makes 'em fall back inline every time. Lincoln was power hungry, that was the reason for the war --- the Confederacy ran out of funds, thus the reason they lost. The u.s. though didn't become richer because of a central government, it became a distributor of the wealth so that small little rule area would have the same educational opportunities as that of a huge city, even though there's only 500 people living there and one grocery store with a gas station and not much happening. [k-12 gets federal funded education, food stamps, a clinic and everything else]
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBoy64
I totally disagree the Confederacy could have mobilized their slaves immediately by guaranteeing them their freedom if they volunteered for a two year period and codified a system of compensation for the owners.
In the unofficial records --- the Black Confederate was there from the beginning of the war. The reason more people don't know and recognize 'em is because they were not officially there until about 3 months before the end of the war.
When Lincoln realized the Confederacy had incorporated them into the war, he did his proclamation that they were all set free, of course only those in the Confederate States. He did that cause, he never thought they'd stay and and continue the fight on the Confederate side. Some of them fought on both sides --- Here are the raw Civil War cables the unpolished records of all the letters ever written; after you go through 'em, you'll never read another history authority again. As you read them, you'll see the argument, 'no they can't be in the war', 'we need them in the war' ... the vote comes in, no they can't be in the war --- then finally okay the vote carries, they can be in the war --- well that's great, cause they've been here since day one. How will history judge us? If they only knew ... it didn't matter.
They wanted to withdraw from the Union they thought had gone corrupt. There's no negotiating that, just let 'em go independent, that's all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native
When the population centers of the north (NYC, Philly, Boston) are reading about distant battle field losses or victories that is one thing. Had they suffered a defeat on their own soil and seen a 150k man "rebel" army lead by General Lee camped out on the NYC horizon the entire will for the north to fight would have been broken.
The will for political power, is much stronger than that. Because with political power, comes great wealth. Lincoln didn't think the war would last 3 days. The first battle they had, people brought their picnic lunches, sat around and watched, until they realized it was getting way to bloody that it was spoiling their appetite. Still Lincoln didn't stop the war ... it didn't matter --- the wealth garnered from a union, much more important than lives.
When Lincoln realized the Confederacy had incorporated them into the war, he did his proclamation that they were all set free, of course only those in the Confederate States. He did that cause, he never thought they'd stay and and continue the fight on the Confederate side.
The evidence is all over the place that Lincoln didn't fight the war to end slavery. He fought a war of aggression to force a lower force back in the union against their will when the Paris Agreement of 1783 gave them international rights to leave.
You have to laugh how they repeat b.s. after b.s. since victors write their own B.S. but it's easy to blow holes in that. Instead to focus why Lincoln fought an illegal war. They repeat the same nonsense: "They left because of slavery. Look is in their constitution, it's their fault for the war"
Slavery then was as legal as women killing babies in their womb by the masses today. It wasn't a moral war because none of the sides had any morals (they were both stealing land from the Natives and the Union was the worse offender) . It's hard to lecture people about slavery when you kill and steal yourself for economic domination.
It's like New York leaving then union and the other states attack them and say: "see, they left to do abortions and it's their fault for this war, they are evil" When the fact is abortion was already legal in the union. Victors write their own b.s. It's funny how life is. Back then Slavery was legal but mass abortions wasn't. Today is the opposite
When Lincoln realized the Confederacy had incorporated them into the war, he did his proclamation that they were all set free, of course only those in the Confederate States. He did that cause, he never thought they'd stay and and continue the fight on the Confederate side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanJuanStar
The evidence is all over the place that Lincoln didn't fight the war to end slavery. He fought a war of aggression to force a lower force back in the union against their will when the Paris Agreement of 1783 gave them international rights to leave.
You have to laugh how they repeat b.s. after b.s. since victors write their own B.S. but it's easy to blow holes in that. Instead to focus why Lincoln fought an illegal war. They repeat the same nonsense: "They left because of slavery. Look is in their constitution, it's their fault for the war"
Slavery then was as legal as women killing babies in their womb by the masses today. It wasn't a moral war because none of the sides had any morals (they were both stealing land from the Natives and the Union was the worse offender) . It's hard to lecture people about slavery when you kill and steal yourself for economic domination.
It's like New York leaving then union and the other states attack them and say: "see, they left to do abortions and it's their fault for this war, they are evil" When the fact is abortion was already legal in the union. Victors write their own b.s. It's funny how life is. Back then Slavery was legal but mass abortions wasn't. Today is the opposite
It's through c-d that over the years I've learned more about the Civil War, than what I can remember ever being taught in school about it. I've been on this board about 15 years. When I first came on there was a thread after thread about it. And I'd just read what ever one had to say about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanJuanStar
You have to laugh how they repeat b.s. after b.s. since victors write their own B.S. but it's easy to blow holes in that. Instead to focus why Lincoln fought an illegal war. They repeat the same nonsense: "They left because of slavery. Look is in their constitution, it's their fault for the war"
And it was those documents I began with --- Confederate States of America : Documents; Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861 and as I was reading them, I thought, they're right, it was all about slavery. So I went back over the documents and back over the documents, and then after looking past the slave inferences, I began to see the political power struggle. Now Avalon Project is really good, in that they have many of the main event documents and in the first 168 years worth of documents, the word slave (I kept pulling up documents and key word search 'em) doesn't even appear. This is an important issue, why isn't it mentioned ... what we seem to think is important today, was just a way of life for them. So, if they would get passed all the mentions of slavery and look at how, 'the north offering none better', is mentioned in those documents in reference to the freeman in the North, it was all a big power play. They air all their grievances including how when they thought they could rely on the Federal government for assistance in some matters, the Federal government ignored them.
The other part that is missing from these discussion is how the Northern States 'really felt' about the Union. They didn't like it either --- they didn't want the black man to be a part of their communities. When Lincoln went to incorporate them into the war, there was a bloody riot over the issue. The voice of public opinion carries weight and the public was like I don't think so ... that is also why in the Confederate official records, you won't find the Confederate Black Soldier ... they didn't want a riot on their hands. So because of that, the historian that write all these books, they will most often use the word 'official records say'. They know, they're not stupid. But it looks better to go with the official record of accounting, but what kills me is the Northwest Ordinance and that they will say it like the North abolished slavery and its expansion when it was the Southern vote to article 6 that abolished the expansion into additional territories. 1787 interesting year in that two things were happening simultaneously --- the Northwest Ordinance in the American Confederacy of Congress abolished slavery expansion and importation of more slaves --- and the Constitutional Convention of 1787, that put it right back, not to be addressed again for 20 years.
The one thing the Confederate Constitution does not do, it does not allow the importation of more slaves, but they go right back to what they declared in the Northwest Ordinance.
While I'd like to agree with you on the victors writing of the history --- it's not so much that, but there's so much of it and in most of it, they couldn't make up their minds, what they were doing and how they were going to get it done. And to a history professor it just looks better to present them as traveling in one direction with a purpose rather than say --- they were all confused about the whole issue.
It's like saying the reason the Confederacy lost and give that whole list of stuff, rather than just plainly put, they ran out of money. But it's the truth, but the truth is seldom glorious, so it get frowned on a lot.
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.
How will history judge us? If they only knew ... it didn't matter.
