# who should have won the american civil war



## dinos7 (Aug 15, 2005)

i have a feeling this ones going to get sticky. 

who should have really won the american civil war?

The Confederates ot the Union?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 15, 2005)

Read your history dinos - the north fought the war like it had its hands tied behind its back. Because of this many lives were wasted


----------



## dinos7 (Aug 15, 2005)

i read alot of history.
i just want other peoples opinions.


----------



## reddragon (Aug 18, 2005)

The Federals had the natural resources, the manpower, the industry, the railroads, basically everything. Even if the Confederate states could have come close to winning, the federals would have just had to put a little more effort into it and would have won. 

I believe it turned out best that the country remained intact. I don't think we would have been much help to the world in WW I and WW II if we had been the USA, the CSA, and whatever else the southern states might have been if they had left the Confederacy. I just wish President Lincoln had not been assasinated. I don't believe the treatment of the south would have been as harsh had he lived. Of course, the winning side always gets to look down on the losing side, that's why we're still shown as in-bred, ignorant, morons. I'm sure the Vietnamese look upon the entire U.S. in a similar way.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 19, 2005)

Even though the Army of the Potomac were commanded by idiots for most of the war, the Federal armies out west continuously beat the confederates. 

Had the Army of the Potomac just camped out in northern Virginia for all of 1864 and 1865, Grant and Sherman would still have made their march through Georgia and headed north. Lee would still have to abandon Virginia and ultimatley surender.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 9, 2006)

I think it isn't a hard question for the Blacks to answer. And I like Abe, Grant and the good old Union.

I still miss the old chivalry and high honor of da' South. They kept dueling alive in America. I don't know whether thats something to be proud of or not, but they were differant than up North. Their Southern Cause was very noble in their eyes. A huge sense of defeat inflicted them when they lost. Since it was a war of ideas, their whole mental outlook had failed. They lost a lot of their spirit. Except for the few Rebs that are left flying Dixie flags from tin roofs! 

I lived in Arkansaw once near a small town called Berryville. A lot of of the the countryside was still pretty run down from the Carpet Bagger days.

It was a big thing when Wal-Mart hit town. At least for me as a kid. 

Now another town, Eureka Springs, was a differant story. It kept some of the old Southern Charm intact and was a bustling tourist town. Really pretty place, that.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 9, 2006)

The North with all its resources should have and did beat the South... If they had fought the war effectively, it would have been over alot sooner....


----------



## Bullockracing (May 13, 2006)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I think it isn't a hard question for the Blacks to answer.
> 
> 
> > And this means?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 22, 2006)

They always felt the Northern Cause was more on their side in their hope for Freedom than the Southern Cause. 

Even though if the South had won they may have eventually gotten rid of slavery.


----------



## SpitfireKing (Jul 10, 2006)

Well, The south had more experienced and tougher generals but the union had the resources and manpower. If the south had resources they would of definitley won.
Why so...
1. They had most of the bases or schools to train troops.
2. More westpointers are or were from the south,
Why not...
1. Could've used blacks like the north started too. But didn't
2. used useless currency that lost it's, well, value during the middle of the war.


----------



## SpitfireKing (Jul 10, 2006)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I think it isn't a hard question for the Blacks to answer. And I like Abe, Grant and the good old Union.
> 
> I still miss the old chivalry and high honor of da' South. They kept dueling alive in America. I don't know whether thats something to be proud of or not, but they were differant than up North. Their Southern Cause was very noble in their eyes. A huge sense of defeat inflicted them when they lost. Since it was a war of ideas, their whole mental outlook had failed. They lost a lot of their spirit. Except for the few Rebs that are left flying Dixie flags from tin roofs!
> 
> ...



Should go there some time. That in Arkansaw to?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 10, 2006)

SpitfireKing said:


> Well, The south had more experienced and tougher generals but the union had the resources and manpower. If the south had resources they would of definitley won.



The Union had plenty of tough generals. Unfortunatly for the Union, they all started the war out in the west and not the east. 

Why so...


> 1. They had most of the bases or schools to train troops.



Neither side used bases to train troops. You essentially learned the fundamentals of war at the various camps and bivoucs whereever the regiments were located.



> 2. More westpointers are or were from the south,



True. The south in the prewar years looked at military service with an aristochratic and gentlemanly point of view. But that isnt to say the north didnt have its fair share of generals either. Also note that the navy was dominated by northerners.


Why not...


> 1. Could've used blacks like the north started too. But didn't



Part of this war was racial. If the south used blacks in combat positions, it would have acknowledged their equality with whites. And that would have knocked an underpinning of the theory of white supremecy and slavery. besides, many southerners were not to keen on the idea of blacks being trained and equiped as soldiers.



> 2. used useless currency that lost it's, well, value during the middle of the war.



The economy was always a fraction of the richer and more industrialized north. Thats one of the biggest reasons the south lost.


----------



## AAA_leadsled (Mar 20, 2007)

Although I am rusty on the history of the "Recent Unpleasantness", having two divided countries would of been detrimental for all of us. In fact some of us probably wouldn't be here! I doubt I would since my ancestors came through Ellis Island, and probably would of never met otherwise!

As for slavery which is not the only reason for the war, it was already being looked upon as archaic and was on the way out, not to say the war didn't hasten its end. I read something recently before the war in Charleston, SC they had outlawed the sale of slaves. 

The north wasn't always a better place for blacks either. They had riots in New York if I remember correctly. If Abe Lincoln had survived, supposedly his plan was to send former slaves to Central America! 

Isn't Liberia in Africa a result of the Civil War?

Having lived in the south my entire life, but not being from a southern family, I have seen examples of the Old South, New South, and somewhere in between. There are still plenty of old southerners who have lived here for generations and are very proud of their heritage. I now live out in the sticks and the nearest town is mostly black. They are more hospitable then most of the larger cities as a whole. 

Unfortunately people with agendas have always equated the Civil War as a war about slavery and racism. When in fact most people in the north were most likely racist too. Only time can make racism go away, if it ever will, since I think human nature is always to point out things that are different in each of us; whether it is our race, religion, etc.. I truly believe it is taught and hence the reason it seems to rear its ugly head now and again. 

I do believe that the confederate battleflag is another hot issue that should be laid to bed. Most people seem to forget the soldiers who did most of the fighting were not slave owners, but average citizens who felt the need to defend themselves. 

Just some thoughts........


----------



## bf109 Emil (Jun 5, 2008)

North wanted to free the slaves, or so the issue goes...but can i ask why??? 
human rights and equallity are nice...but did the black african americans become really free?? Equal??? receive the same pay??? same schooling??? ...I know i will get a lot of ..."what do you know???your Canadian???

Can i ask this question...who threw millions of dollars into the Union coffers to fund the war???
who would benefit the most from freeing the slaves and have access to a cheaper source of labour????
Who started to feel the pinch from higher labour costs, strikes, and lost sales do to the souths abundant source of labour being virtually free????
Was this a war of making men equal and free?? or a war funded by huge industrialists from the North all looking for a cheap/strike free/long hour per week labourer????
If this is not so or not the reason....their sure must have been a lot of deep pockets in the north all trying to make men free and equal...


----------



## Njaco (Jun 5, 2008)

As with any war, the true reason can be hidden behind many of the points you present.

If you read "Miracle in Philadelphia" you can get an idea why slavery was such a hot button when it came to the US and self-governing. Our Constitution states that all men are created equal and it took awhile for that to sink in and grab hold.

There was a freedom by slaves shortly after the war as numerous blacks became Senators, Congressmen and Mayors, especially in the south. But changing ones belief systen takes time.

I'm really glad and estatic that we finally have a black canidate for Prseident (although not someone I would ever vote for based on his character) and it does show that we are moving forward as a nation albeit 130 years removed from the event. But over time I believe the war established a victim culture for blacks that has started to creep into every facet of today.

I'm waiting for the day when MLK's "content of the character" becomes the yardstick and the norm.


----------



## bf109 Emil (Jun 5, 2008)

Obama has good points,,,,but i hope as was the case with his running mate Hillary...people vote for THE BEST PERSON...it seems the democratic race was between a black man and a woman, and the whole issue.who would be the best to govern the people of the United States got passed to the back burner...but with a 2 party system, or one which awards all the delegates from the winning state that number of seats, their will never be a 3,4,or 5 party system, which creates a sort of ruler, where having 50.1% can send a nation to war, pass laws, etc...now what if the seats won, went to the party that won in their voting area, and didn't get lumped into the whole state giving these seats to democrats or republicans...a 3rd say labour party might win in Pennsylvania, and Michigan, Ohio, a number of seats by Union workers, a social credit party, usually reserved for farmers, land owners might win a handful in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, who knows workers such as immigrants whom always seem to be short on the cut of pie might garner a communist party, and take a few seats....In this way, with seats divided in more then 2 piles, Bushes plans, Clinton's fiasco with Monica...might result in whom ever backing him, saying your a turd, we switch are support to the other head of opposition...

......all in alll from experience , when Canada has had a majority government...they have mostly screwed up, or pushed an issue almost with bully tactics...gun registry fiasco, GST tax, Looney coin, squashed air-bus/army helicopter deal, N.E.C.;;;; have all been commited with a majority government, cause who's gonna stop them...but when the prime minister, has had a minority government, it seems to look at issues, outcomes much more detailed cause they know if they do a crappy move, the opposition in power will garner the seats from the minority parties, and claim, your outta here, new election....

the only fault being, their isn't no set 4 years in power, say if Bush Iraq was unpopular 3 months into his election..he'd have gone to the polls and had his butt removed a few month post decision...


----------



## Njaco (Jun 5, 2008)

I don't know if that would be an option either. We have a great system here even if it is two party but there are two things that make them all equal and all rogues - money and power.

Besides lawyers, it is the only business the perpetuates itself.


----------



## bf109 Emil (Jun 6, 2008)

ditto just trying to make a point...with only 2 parties, one is always going to be in control of decisions, regardless, that is all


----------



## Njaco (Jun 6, 2008)

> with only 2 parties, one is always going to be in control of decisions



And I guess that is the point and there really isn't anything wrong with that as long as there is a failsafe such as term limits or something similar. And I would want a president or Senator that represents my views - that is why the party system. Even if its the opposition party I know that in a few years I get the chance to vote them the 'ell out.  But what happens is that once elected, the ideals, party, yada yada all get tossed out the window for power and money and they all become the same. I read a book once (can't remember the name) that talked about the culture of the Beltway. Its amazing that these dopes even pretend to belong to a political party - everybody has their fingers in the pie.


----------



## renrich (Jun 7, 2008)

A government that is ruled by polls continually taken would not make for much stability. I believe our government here in the US would be much better if we had term limits. Perhaps, one 6 year term for the president, two four year terms for the senate and two two year terms for the House. If one is talking about who should have won the War Between the States as far as capabilities, the North had all the advantages. From a political point of view, assuming that there could be no political accommodation between North and South, it was better that the North won. It was a shame to have gotten to the point of having a war. If I could rewrite history, I would keep Texas out of the Union and not have to deal with the States War. That idea would make a good "what if" book.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 10, 2008)

bf109 Emil said:


> North wanted to free the slaves, or so the issue goes...but can i ask why???
> human rights and equallity are nice...but did the black african americans become really free?? Equal??? receive the same pay??? same schooling??? ...I know i will get a lot of ..."what do you know???your Canadian???
> 
> Can i ask this question...who threw millions of dollars into the Union coffers to fund the war???
> ...


 
A lot more complicated. First, slavery wasn't the prime issue but 3/5 of the slave population counted as credit against one House of representative vote in the South - and the South had lost the HR.

Second, the North had control of House of Representatives and South lost on all tariff issues - meaning thaey had to 'buy' from North rather than Europe all manufacturing goods, and sell to North all Agricultural goods.

Slaves were noy emancipated until Gettysburg address in 1863.

At the end of the day, the War Between the States put nearly 5,000,000 men under arms for a 60,000,000 population - and THAT got Europe's attention!

The United States had less than 1200 officers and 30,000 men in the US army when the war started


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 11, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Slaves were not emancipated until Gettysburg address in 1863.



You mean the Emancipation Proclamations in Sept 1862 and Jan 1863, right after the battle of Antietam.


----------



## renrich (Jun 13, 2008)

Right, the Emancipation Proclamation was not signed until after the fight at Sharpsburg,1862,(Antietam.) The interesting thing was that the Proclamation only "freed" the slaves in the Confederacy. There were, I believe, three states in the Union, Maryland being one, that were slave states where they weren't freed. The net result of the war, economically was that the South came out destitute and the North came out with a vibrant economy, even more industrialised than before the war.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jun 13, 2008)

Even U.S. Grant owned slaves, four of them I believe.

TO


----------



## Njaco (Jun 13, 2008)

and Maryland was a hotponit - the North wanted them on the Northern cause that some things were overlooked wink-wink.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 25, 2008)

I have a purely Southern view point, having grown up in the deep South and having at least one ancestor who fought for the Rebel side. I remember clearly “white” and “colored” drinking fountains. I remember thinking how stupid it was when my mother chided me for trying to drink out of a “colored” fountain. My high school was Escambia High, and we were the “Rebels”. I had a little Rebel flag on the antenna of my ’54 Ford four door, not a cool car! I only did that because my high school mascot was the “Rebels”. There was much animosity when integration came and the name had to be changed. That animosity, however, changed in a flash when a young football player named Emmett Smith put on an Escambia uniform. 

With unlimited, relatively speaking, industry, manpower, weaponry, materiel, technology, and Navy, the North should have, and did, win. It should have done it much quicker.

The South did have some going-in advantages. 

The South was mainly rural and agricultural with little manufacturing capability. It was also a very patriarchal. As a result, it had a high percentage of men who were used to using guns and horses, and was quite adaptable to rigid military discipline (just another family). 

The war was mostly fought on home ground. Terrain was familiar and logistics was short.

Up to 1863, Army of Northern Virginia was most likely the best army in the world at that time (as opined by Sir Winston Churchill in his “A History of English-Speaking Peoples”). It had:
Leadership that was aggressive, flexible, imaginative, and loyal. They certainly won the officer draft.
Excellent cavalry 
Very good artillery
Disciplined, brave, highly motivated (they were fighting on their home ground), and intensely loyal soldiers.

The North, in the East, had weak leadership that could not even win a battle with the enemy battle plan in hand (Battle of Antietam).

Idiots ran the Northern weapons development program. More aggressive and universal acceptance of the Spenser, Henry, and Gatlin weapons could have easily ended the war much quicker.

Had the North tired and opted out, the results would have been catastropic. Slavery would have ended in the South anyway. It was a barbaric institution and I am imbarrassed as a Southerner that it existed. How could basically good people endure such evil? I think the Confederacy would have evolved into a aparthied system like South Africa. There probably would have been massive emigration into the North of African Americans.

As for the Stars and Bars (Confederate Battle Flag), I am at a puzzlement. As a person who has a history in the Old South, I understand the rememberance of the emotions of the people who fought and died for it, not to perserve slavery, but to defend their homes and their freedoms. On the other hand, I understand the symbology of the horror of slavery, similar to the swastika’s symbol for the holocaust. My current opinion, the Stars and Bars has no business flying over a government facility.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 25, 2008)

Davparlr untill early 1864, the best officers in the whole country were in the Union fighting in the west.

Gens. Sherman and Grant understood the war and the logistics side of it extremely well.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 27, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Davparlr untill early 1864, the best officers in the whole country were in the Union fighting in the west.
> 
> Gens. Sherman and Grant understood the war and the logistics side of it extremely well.



syscom3, please name the battles that Grant won where,

1. He did not outnumber his opponent.

2. He did not have better weapons.

3. He did not have a significant materiel advantage.

Here is the list for Lee

Seven Days US 104,100 CSA 92,000

Second Bull Run US 62,000 CSA 50,000

Fredricksburg US 114,000 CSA 72,000

Chancellersville US 133,868 CSA 60,892

Cold Harbor US 108,000 CSA 62,000 (against Grant after anticipating and blocking Grant at The Wilderness and Spotsylvania, all with about half the troops)

As for Sherman, he seems to be rather lackluster in his efforts. His lone real claim to fame was his march through Georgia, where, I suspect he outnumbered all of his opponents (he invaded with about 100,000 troops). He lost a couple of battles he should have won, Chickasaw Bayou and Kennesaw Mountain, where he outnumbered the enemy two to one at both engagements, and at Chattanooga, he was basically impotent in support of the victory, failing to achieve his goals.

Its hard to assign greatness to a player who can win with all the aces, however, many of the Northern generals could not do even that. Nothing succeeds like success.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 27, 2008)

Name me a campaign that he lost? No points for second place!


----------



## timshatz (Aug 27, 2008)

Grants Vicksburg Campaign is/was brilliant. Been a while since I studied it but I seem to recall he was in the middle of several different enemy forces, on the wrong side of the river and could have been cut off and destroyed. He saw got moving and engaged them piecemeal, never really giving them time to settle.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 31, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Name me a campaign that he lost? No points for second place!



Hmmm, using your logic, you must think Montgomery is a better general than Rommel, since Montgomery won all of his campaigns and Rommel did not, and got no points for coming in second. 




timshatz said:


> Grants Vicksburg Campaign is/was brilliant. Been a while since I studied it but I seem to recall he was in the middle of several different enemy forces, on the wrong side of the river and could have been cut off and destroyed. He saw got moving and engaged them piecemeal, never really giving them time to settle.



Grant's strategy was sporatic. His set up to Vicksburg was well done but the final victory was not particually brilliant. After being unsuccessfull in attacking Vicksburg with poorly executed frontal assults, and wasting many good men, he resorted to the time proven system of seige. His executon of the siege, however, was expertly done. As usual, Grant had twice the forces of the defenders, which showed he did not understand attacking fortifications, where 3-1 odds or more likely to succeed, but he had more enough to successfully pull off a siege, where only about 6000 external forces were available to the confederates to break the seige.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 31, 2008)

Winning has a quality all of its own.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 1, 2008)

Lee's invasion of the North was brilliant - Gettysburg was a great strategic victory and ensured the US a future position of strength in the world.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 1, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Winning has a quality all of its own.


So, then you believe Montgomery was a better general than Rommel.



mkloby said:


> Lee's invasion of the North was brilliant - Gettysburg was a great strategic victory and ensured the US a future position of strength in the world.




Lee’s invasion of the North was meant to convince the North the war was too expensive. He almost succeeded and was only thwarted by heroic fighting by Northern forces in several pitched battles. His order for Pickett’s charge was foolish and reflected his own ego in thinking he was unbeatable with his Army of Northern Virginia. He knew better as he saw what happened at Fredericksburg when armies attack a well fortified line. He was also outnumbered, by the way. Still , it almost turned out to be a war changer in the opposite direction.


Also, no one has named a single major battle where Grant


1. He did not outnumber his opponent.

2. He did not have better weapons.

3. He did not have a significant materiel advantage.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 1, 2008)

davparlr said:


> ....His order for Pickett’s charge was foolish and reflected his own ego in thinking he was unbeatable with his Army of Northern Virginia. He knew better as he saw what happened at Fredericksburg when armies attack a well fortified line. .....



Lee made a monumental blunder at Gettysburg. Brilliant fighting by several Union Generals also blunted his forces on several occasions. This battle alone should knock him off the statue of exaltation.



> 1. He did not outnumber his opponent.
> 
> 2. He did not have better weapons.
> 
> 3. He did not have a significant materiel advantage.



Like, I said, winning has a quality all its own!


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 1, 2008)

Union had more Industrial areas and factories to manufacture weapons and what not


----------



## renrich (Sep 1, 2008)

I believe that Lee at Gettysburg made a mistake on the last day with the attack by Pickett, Pettigrew and Trimble but I believe one must get inside his head to see that there were extenuating circumstances. I believe that he knew that if the war lasted another year, it was lost. he knew that the South was growing weaker while the North grew stronger. He knew another winter for his horses and mules would leave them so weak, he would have no mobility. He knew that Union confidence was at a low ebb and that a victory at Gettysburg and threatening Washington could possibly bring them to terms. He himself was tired, ill and worn out and he knew that his most aggressive corps commander, Jackson, could not be replaced by Hill or Ewell. His troops had prevailed so many times against impossible odds that he thought they might pull it out. He knew that he only risked the lives of perhaps 7500 men in the charge and that if it failed the Union army lacked the initiative to finish him off. If I was in his shoes under those circumstances and thought that 7500 men's lives could very possibly end the war, I believe that I would have made the same choice. His greatness as a general is proven by his leadership during 1864-65 against overwhelming odds. If Lee had commanded the Army of the Potomac instead of Northern Virginia the chances are the war would have ended much sooner.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 1, 2008)

At Gettysburg, the Union held every single assault made on their lines.

Lee lost the battle. 

On the contrary, Grant won every single battle when it counted.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 1, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> . Brilliant fighting by several Union Generals also blunted his forces on several occasions.



Betcha none had fewer troops. 




> Like, I said, winning has a quality all its own!



A strange comment repeated. If a coach has 11 men on his football team and only plays games against 7 men teams, and wins all of them, you would call him a great coach. I would say, at least he was good enough to win with more players. If a coach of a 7 man team played only 11 men teams, and won 5 out of 7 and on playing the one that lost none, played even or better until 3 of his 7 player went out with injuries, I would say he is a great coach, and you would say, winning is a quality all its own and the winning coach is special. “Winning has a quality all its own”, without understanding the variables, it is a useless statement.

Grant, with twice the troops (all well-fed), unlimited replacements, great logistics, and outstanding weaponry, was unable to defeat Lee in open battle and suffered severe losses trying (a trait of Grant). Only after almost a year of irreplaceable attrition by the South, including a WWI type of siege, was Grant able to chase Lee to ground. He was continually outsmarted and out fought by a much smaller army that was getting smaller and smaller, a poor and wasteful performance, at best.

But, he did know how to beat a 7 man team with an 11 man team. That is better than most of the Union generals.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 1, 2008)

renrich said:


> I believe that Lee at Gettysburg made a mistake on the last day with the attack by Pickett, Pettigrew and Trimble but I believe one must get inside his head to see that there were extenuating circumstances. I believe that he knew that if the war lasted another year, it was lost. he knew that the South was growing weaker while the North grew stronger. He knew another winter for his horses and mules would leave them so weak, he would have no mobility. He knew that Union confidence was at a low ebb and that a victory at Gettysburg and threatening Washington could possibly bring them to terms. He himself was tired, ill and worn out and he knew that his most aggressive corps commander, Jackson, could not be replaced by Hill or Ewell. His troops had prevailed so many times against impossible odds that he thought they might pull it out. He knew that he only risked the lives of perhaps 7500 men in the charge and that if it failed the Union army lacked the initiative to finish him off. If I was in his shoes under those circumstances and thought that 7500 men's lives could very possibly end the war, I believe that I would have made the same choice. His greatness as a general is proven by his leadership during 1864-65 against overwhelming odds. If Lee had commanded the Army of the Potomac instead of Northern Virginia the chances are the war would have ended much sooner.



Very astute, in my opinion.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 1, 2008)

davparlr said:


> But, he did know how to beat a 7 man team with an 11 man team. That is better than most of the Union generals.



Perhaps Grant knew that fighting when outnumbered is not a smart thing to do.

Winning has a quality all on its own.

The confederates were doomed from 1864 onwards.

Grant in the north pinning down Lee, while Sherman marched unopposed throughout the deep south.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 1, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> At Gettysburg, the Union held every single assault made on their lines.



Untrue. Many Union lines were not held at the start of the battle and had to fall back in order not to be overran. Unless you consider falling backwards holding the line!



> Lee lost the battle.



True, but, there were points where the battle could have easily become another victory for Lee. Oh, by the way, Lee had 22,000 less troops! 



> On the contrary, Grant won every single battle when it counted.



Of course he did this with more troops, weapons, replacements, and logistic. An amazing and ingenious performance.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 1, 2008)

renrich said:


> I believe that Lee at Gettysburg made a mistake on the last day with the attack by Pickett, Pettigrew and Trimble but I believe one must get inside his head to see that there were extenuating circumstances. I believe that he knew that if the war lasted another year, it was lost. he knew that the South was growing weaker while the North grew stronger. He knew another winter for his horses and mules would leave them so weak, he would have no mobility. He knew that Union confidence was at a low ebb and that a victory at Gettysburg and threatening Washington could possibly bring them to terms. He himself was tired, ill and worn out and he knew that his most aggressive corps commander, Jackson, could not be replaced by Hill or Ewell. His troops had prevailed so many times against impossible odds that he thought they might pull it out. He knew that he only risked the lives of perhaps 7500 men in the charge and that if it failed the Union army lacked the initiative to finish him off. If I was in his shoes under those circumstances and thought that 7500 men's lives could very possibly end the war, I believe that I would have made the same choice. His greatness as a general is proven by his leadership during 1864-65 against overwhelming odds. If Lee had commanded the Army of the Potomac instead of Northern Virginia the chances are the war would have ended much sooner.



I agree with part of what you say... Of course monday morning qb'ing this is easy. I'm a proud Yank. The strategic situation facing the Confederacy at the outset was bleak. Gen Lee did have the only real opportunity for victory in that campaign. He commanded brilliantly throughout many engagements - that cannot be disputed. Luckily for the Union, Gettysburg was not one of them. The Confederacy should not have expected to even exist for that long in my opinion.


----------



## Amsel (Sep 1, 2008)

This was one of our darkest hours and one that has huge implications still today. The South lost the war and it was inevitable even though the Confederate Army (the army of Northern Virginia in particular) was one of the best armies ever fielded in history. I am glad the Union is united today. BUT.....the war basically ended much of power that states used to have. The war proved that we all have to answer to a central goverment wheither they know better or not. The war was not about slavery but about the rights of individual states to decide what was right for themselves. That idea was crushed. There are people still in a couple states who threaten to "secede" from the union still today. Montana and Vermont are good examples. Montana threatened to secede if the Supreme court decided against the second amendment. Many in Vermont want to secede over having no voice in D.C. or anything in common with the direction of this nation.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 1, 2008)

Amsel said:


> BUT.....the war basically ended much of power that states used to have. The war proved that we all have to answer to a central goverment wheither they know better or not. The war was not about slavery but about the rights of individual states to decide what was right for themselves. That idea was crushed.



Have you ever noticed Article VI of the US Constitution????


----------



## Amsel (Sep 1, 2008)

mkloby said:


> Have you ever noticed Article VI of the US Constitution????



I have noticed it!!!!

That is what the war was about. How much rights the individual states had.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 1, 2008)

Amsel said:


> I have noticed it!!!!
> 
> That is what the war was about. How much rights the individual states had.



Depeds what level you want to look at it.

If federal legislation was passed that southern states thought damaging, well by article VI they were still bound to comply. There's no question or debate about that whatsoever.

Did they have the right to secede - I guess you could say that was a right they fought for.


----------



## Amsel (Sep 1, 2008)

mkloby said:


> Depeds what level you want to look at it.
> 
> If federal legislation was passed that southern states thought damaging, well by article VI they were still bound to comply. There's no question or debate about that whatsoever.
> 
> Did they have the right to secede - I guess you could say that was a right they fought for.



Quite true. There are thousands of battles daily on all levels between the local and federal goverment. Especially about taxes. The civil war was an extreme.


----------



## Amsel (Sep 1, 2008)

“When in the Course of human Events it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another…”

That was not a careless choice of chance words thrown together in a hap hazard manner, those were precise words to describe the exact condition that exists between one party of a political alliance and another.
What our Founding Fathers said, and it was true, is that we are not “bound” in a Political Arrangement, but only “banded” together with the other in a limited agreement. There are certainly limits to such an agreement.

Just as the Colonies were banded to the English Government and Crown, all the States (Independent Nations) that had joined the American Union were banded together, and not bonded together.

Our Colonial Ancestors were banded in a Political Union which could only last for as long as it was mutually agreeable to all parties concerned, and the same is true for the States banded to one another in the American Union which was Legally Formed, and Legally Dissolved.


----------



## Amsel (Sep 1, 2008)

An excerpt of the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States


Written by C.G. Memminger
Adopted December 24, 1860 





The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue. 

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act. 

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do." 

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved." 

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." 

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof." 

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 1, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Untrue. Many Union lines were not held at the start of the battle and had to fall back in order not to be overran. Unless you consider falling backwards holding the line!



Once the Union lines were organized along Missionary Ridge, the several rebel assaults all ended in failure.



> True, but, there were points where the battle could have easily become another victory for Lee. Oh, by the way, Lee had 22,000 less troops!



Irrelevant.



> Of course he did this with more troops, weapons, replacements, and logistic. An amazing and ingenious performance.



Grant won.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 2, 2008)

Thanks for posting that Amsel.

I agree the theory and sentiment behind the rationale for secession - yet the reality behind southern secession is not as pure.


----------



## renrich (Sep 2, 2008)

The Union did not contain the attack on the first day. Once Harry Heth got untracked and Ewell's corps came in, the Blue forces had to pull back and had two corps ruined. On the second day, Sickles' corps was smashed and the Union lines were pushed back. The fact that three Union corps had been decimated was probably another factor which led Lee to believe one last attack would succeed. I repeat that if Lee had been the commander of the Army Potomac, the war would probably have ended sooner. Perhaps it would have been better for all concerned if he had accepted that command.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 2, 2008)

The Union lines all held after they dug in on Missionary Ridge. 

What happened on the first day was irrelevant.


----------



## renrich (Sep 2, 2008)

The right to secede is the question posed by the War Between the States which still troubles me. When a political entity is formed by parties that join of their own free will, why cannot they unjoin if they wish. I am a loyal American, have served in our military but am also a loyal Texan. Texas was an independent country, a republic, which joined the Union of it's own volition. Why, when the best interests of Texas are being conflicted by the US government, cannot we secede and resume being the Republic of Texas? As a nation, we, the United States revere the concepts of liberty, freedom and justice for all. Is it justice that if Texas declares that it is once again an independent republic, that the US will, by force of arms, put us back into the United States? On the other hand, if, when a state or group of states in the United States disagrees with a law invoked by the federal government, that state or states threatens to secede, then our political union is irrevocably weakened. Practically speaking, I believe that our union should be forever. My personal philosophy disagrees. It is well to remember that a state or several states in the Northeast threatened disunion a number of times before 1860.


----------



## renrich (Sep 2, 2008)

I believe that was Cemetary Ridge where the Union was dug in, not Missionary Ridge. Sickles was not on Cemetery Ridge. He pulled his corps down in front of the ridge.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 2, 2008)

renrich said:


> I believe that was Cemetary Ridge where the Union was dug in, not Missionary Ridge. Sickles was not on Cemetery Ridge. He pulled his corps down in front of the ridge.



Yes you are right.

It was Little Round Top, Cemetary Ridge, Cemetary Hill and Culps Hill.


----------



## renrich (Sep 2, 2008)

Yep, I get them mixed up also. I believe that Missionary Ridge was near Nashville. The Union lines on the last day were in the shape of a fish hook with Culp's Hill and Cemetary Hill at one end and Little Round Top and Big Round Top at the other end. I believe that the Union had cleared some timber from Big Round Top and had artillery there on the last day.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 2, 2008)

renrich said:


> Yep, I get them mixed up also. I believe that Missionary Ridge was near Nashville. The Union lines on the last day were in the shape of a fish hook with Culp's Hill and Cemetary Hill at one end and Little Round Top and Big Round Top at the other end. I believe that the Union had cleared some timber from Big Round Top and had artillery there on the last day.



Missionary Ridge was near Lookout Mountain. My mother always told me that I had a great, whatever, grandfather that was wounded there. However, the Florida volunteers never fought there. they were in the East and fought at Petersburg.


----------



## Amsel (Sep 3, 2008)

mkloby said:


> Thanks for posting that Amsel.
> 
> I agree the theory and sentiment behind the rationale for secession - yet the reality behind southern secession is not as pure.



While I agree that the slave holding state secession was not pure the matter is once again becoming relevant. This election maybe a deciding factor in some or many states joining in rebellion against and most definantly threatening secession from the U.S. The nation has become split straight down the middle. The major population centers of the East and West coast have dominated the media but do not usually speak for the silent majority of the midwest and intermountain regions. This is going to eventually become a problem unless they get their own primary. But that is unlikely. As the Balkanization of America continues Civil War 2 is becoming more of a possibility as the gap between the third world and leftists and the conservative patriots grow.


----------



## Amsel (Sep 3, 2008)

"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE: 
THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the 
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all 
powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal 
government by the Constitution of the United States. 
THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, 
as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates 
that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated 
powers."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
Oklahoma to feds: Don't tread on me
State House defends its sovereignty from D.C. intrusion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 16, 2008
10:00 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily 

Steamed over a perceived increase in federal usurping of states' rights, Oklahoma's House of Representatives told Washington, D.C., to back off.

Joint House Resolution 1089, passed by an overwhelming 92-3 margin, reasserts Oklahoma's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and, according to the resolution's own language, is "serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates."

The Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Traditionally, this language has meant that the federal government is limited in its scope and cannot usurp the sovereign powers of states. In recent decades, however, as the size and reach of the federal government has expanded, many have come to question whether Washington has stepped on states' rights and gotten too big for its breeches.

Charles Key, the Republican state representative who authored the resolution, told WND that he introduced it because he believes the federal government's overstepping of its bounds has put our constitutional form of government in danger.


Oklahoma State Rep. Charles Key 

"The more we stand by and watch the federal government get involved in areas where it has no legal authority, we kill the Constitution a little at a time," he said. "The last few decades, the Constitution has been hanging by a thread."

Specifically, Resolution 1089 says the following:

"The State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States."

The resolution resolves that Oklahoma will "serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."

It also instructs that "a copy of this resolution be distributed to the president of the United States, the president of the United States Senate, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the speaker of the House and the president of the Senate of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma congressional delegation."

The resolution does not, as some have speculated, amount to secession, but it does send a warning signal to Washington: Oklahoma does not intend to be bullied by big brother government.

Oklahoma to feds: Don't tread on me


----------



## renrich (Sep 3, 2008)

I agree that our country may be more polarized politically today than at any time since 1860. From my viewpoint, it is more polarized than it has ever been since I began to be involved in politics which was the 1950s. This is probably because of the constant barrage of political "news" in the mass media and because one of our parties, the dimocrat party, is controlled by the hard left, a position which is comfortable for most of the media. It is no wonder that conservative voters feel besieged and outnumbered. Hopefully, the election of John McCain(if it happens) can create a more bi partisan attitude in congress and dampen the rhetoric. A big step in the right direction would be a more responsible and unbiased media.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 3, 2008)

renrich said:


> .... A big step in the right direction would be a more responsible and unbiased media.



I'd laugh if the FCC proposed the fairness doctrine to also apply to the network news.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 3, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> I'd laugh if the FCC proposed the fairness doctrine to also apply to the network news.



Fairness doctrine is complete and utter BS... talk about government control over the media...


----------



## Corsair82pilot (Jan 14, 2009)

dinos7 said:


> i have a feeling this ones going to get sticky.
> 
> who should have really won the american civil war?
> 
> The Confederates ot the Union?



The Union should have won the war, because it did. That is how history works. I have a degree in History from the Virginia Military Institute, class of '78. The way it is taught there, you would think the South had won!


----------



## Corsair82pilot (Jan 14, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> They always felt the Northern Cause was more on their side in their hope for Freedom than the Southern Cause.
> 
> Even though if the South had won they may have eventually gotten rid of slavery.



Ending slavery was not the reason the war was fought, though it was part of the "State Rights" argument the South used as a reason for secession. The end of slavery was a result of the war's outcome. Lincoln only freed the slaves who were living in states that were rebelling against the Union. Read the "Emancipation Proclamation". He did not free slaves who lived in states that had not seceded from the union. There were at least four states that still had slaves that remained in the Union.
It was thought freeing the slave in rebelling stated would cause slave uprisings that would force southern soldiers to go home. There was no way to enforce the freeing of the slaves at the time.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 14, 2009)

Technically

and practically (obviously, because they did) the Union should have won it.

At the point in the war where the Confederacy were scraping the bottom of the barrel for fighting-eligible men, the Union were still pouring them in by the boatload.

I daresay the war was won by other, more subtle means too but the Confederates lost the war of attrition, the Union literally ground them down.

Morally

well, the Union again; although segregated from his white comrade-in-arms by ignorant prejudice, the black soldier was an order of magnitude better off than he would have been under Confederate jurisdiction.

I didn't read the whole post so apologies if I've stolen anyone's material...


----------



## fly boy (Jan 14, 2009)

the north even if you gave the south good firearms they would still lose


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 14, 2009)

It was close to start with...

I must confess I haven't read a vast amount on this conflict, but the impression I garner is that in the early days (up to Antietam/Sharpsburg), it could have gone either way. At that time, the industrial edge of the Union was not fully evident, nor was the blockade fully effective. Bull Run demonstrated, like the Marne did in another conflict 50 years later, that the hoped-for 'short war' would not occur. 

Of course, the Union was much better prepared in the long term for a victory - the North had greater industrial capacity, greater manpower reserves to draw on, better internal communication infrastructure, and in time, an efficient naval blockade that choked the South. But had it not been for the defeat at Antietam, I believe there was a real chance that France and/or the UK would have intervened in favour of the South, which could well have been disastrous for the Union. But that's a tale for Mr. Turtledove.... 8)


----------



## Corsair82pilot (Jan 14, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> ... I believe there was a real chance that France and/or the UK would have intervened in favour of the South, which could well have been disastrous for the Union. But that's a tale for Mr. Turtledove.... 8)



The Brits were so anti-slavery, I don't think there was a chance they would have supported the South. The French were helping the South in exchange for cotton, but may have intervened in the future if there had been a chance of southern victory. These are my own theories, of course.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 14, 2009)

I think we might have forgotten our morals had the supply of cotton been threatened. Even if it was 'only' a naval commitment to get the trade routes open again, I think something would have been done.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Jan 14, 2009)

Corsair82pilot said:


> The Brits were so anti-slavery, I don't think there was a chance they would have supported the South. The French were helping the South in exchange for cotton, but may have intervened in the future if there had been a chance of southern victory. These are my own theories, of course.



Neither the French nor the British were about to get themselves too deeply involved in the US Civil War. Both countries had strong issues with the slavery stance of the South, and both countries were primarily occupied with obtaining a cheap source of cotton from the South. I'll also add that both countries supplied both sides, but primarily the South with weapons such as Enfield rifled muskets or the LeMat pistol. In fact, I do recall reading somewhere that both French and British observers were present as guests of the South during the battle at Gettysburg. However, Both France and England had soon found cheaper sources of cotton elsewhere (India, I believe) and so the South was doomed. Even with a wider involvement from France and England, it's doubtful the South could have won. The war may have been prolonged, but the end would have been the same. 

The most direct involvement by the French in the US civil war was allowing the CSS ALABAMA a rest period and refitting in Cherbourg. The USS Kearsarge Ramained outside the harbor until the Alabama sailed out to engage her. The French took a position of non-interference despite both ships engaging in battle in French waters. The Alabama was sunk and the resulkt was a very nice study painting by impressionist painter Edouard Manet depicting the naval engagement. The wreck of the Alabama has been located and many of it artifacts retreived. It is the property of the US government.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jan 15, 2009)

I believe in the long run, the Union would win. The South had some good generals, and Lee was a good commander, but they didn't have the manpower to win a war on attrition. Yes, the South won a number of battles against the Union, but while the South tooks months to replenish their losses, the Union could replenish in weeks.


----------



## walle (Jan 15, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> I think we might have forgotten our morals had the supply of cotton been threatened. Even if it was 'only' a naval commitment to get the trade routes open again, I think something would have been done.


I'm not so certain about that; The United Kingdom was the first country in the world to ban slavery to begin with, and as pointed out; India supplied cotton.


----------



## walle (Jan 15, 2009)

> Even with a wider involvement from France and England, it's doubtful the South could have won. The war may have been prolonged, but the end would have been the same. .


Hypothetically speaking here, I don’t think that the North would have survived had the English and the French made a 100% commitment to the South. Not that it really matters though, its water under the bridge.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Jan 16, 2009)

I'm not sure if this was already mentioned or not, but it seems to me that Abraham Lincoln was fearful of the British and French involvement. One of the main driving forces behind the Emancipation Proclamation was so that politically it would be against French and British policy to join the South, because as stated earlier they were already anti-slavery.

Therefore, I believe that it may have been possible for the South to win with European involvement because it nullified the North's industrial advantage over the South. The major problem would have been the logistics of shipping troops.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 16, 2009)

Getting troops and equipment across the Atlantic wouldn't have been a serious problem - the RN managed it quite well 90 years earlier  The UK and France had also learned a lot from thier Caribbean and Atlantic operations during the Napoleonic wars, and had maintained long seaborne supply lines during the Crimean War, just a decade before the ACW. The European powers were militarily sophisticated in this period, and I believe they were more than capable of sustaining a trans-Atlantic commitment for protracted periods. I also think the RN would have been a tough foe for the Union Navy. What really would have screwed a _joint_ effort from England and France was the fact the the UK spent the entire 1860s convinced the Frogs were going to invade the south coast, and spent huge amounts of money building pointless forts to counter this imaginary threat.  I can't see the government of the day agreeing to co-operate with the French in that climate.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Jan 16, 2009)

True... Didn't think of the logistical support. My mistake  
Even if either one of France or England joined the fight it would have been a hard time for the Union, as you said the were technologically advanced and therefore would have given the North a run for there money.



> I also think the RN would have been a tough foe for the Union Navy



No doubt.. Much more experience


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 16, 2009)

I wouldn't over-estimate the power of the RN in terms of it's capability to win a Trafalgar-style victory over the Union fleet. Neither side had fought a major surface engagement since the 1820s at the very latest, and new ironclads like HMS Warrior were rare and as yet untested. The outcome of the Battle of Lissa in 1866 suggests that an encounter between Union and English fleets may well have been indecisive. The key advantage that the RN did possess was the fact that they had more or less written the rulebooks on close blockade and securing very long distance supply lines during the Napoleonic wars.

I think the British Army would have been a far more severe threat to Union plans. It was less than a decade out of the Crimea, and hardened by almost incessant colonial warfare. The French had a similarly well-tested army, which had also participated in the Italian wars. What these battle-tested troops might have done to the enthusiastic but inexperienced Union armies of the early war would not have been a pretty sight, I fear...


----------



## Flyboy2 (Jan 17, 2009)

If the RN was engaged it would have more than likely been a blockading action correct? 
The beginning of the war wasn't pretty for the Union already mostly because of the excellent command structure that the Confederates had over the Union. Good thing the British didn't get involved.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 17, 2009)

The South had a number of opportunities to at least draw up an armistice with the Union.

The battle of Gettysburg was one example. It was a battle that the South should have won.

To start off with, Gen. Lee had ordered his units NOT to engage the Union forces at Gettysburg until he was on the scene and had made an assesment. A number of his units were still afield, most importantly J.E.B. Stuart's cavalry forces.

Gen. Lee's mission up to that point was to drive a wedge into the Union forces and head as far north as possible. The Confederate hopes were that a second invasion of the north would be enough to force the Union to the table for an armistice.

Also up to the battle of Gettysburg, the Union had been suffering setbacks both militarily and politically. The Union civilians were becoming disenchanted with the war dragging on and the Southern forces had been having a heyday north of the Mason-Dixon line, which in turn scared the northern citizens.

Also late in the war, General Early marched on Washington, casting off a small force of Union troops at Monocacy. Early didn't know that Washington was defended by clerks, quartermasters and unassigned officers. His troops were also fatigued from the previous battle and long march. Even still, had he followed through with an attack, the possability of a victory was good.

As far as the Emancipation Proclimation goes, Lincoln had drafted it some time before he issued it, but was waiting for a decisive Union victory to issue it in the hopes of swelling public support (as well as demoralizing the southern public). The "victory" came at Antietam, though it wasn't a "great victory" that Lincoln had hoped for.

The thing I always found interesting about the Civil War, were the military firsts, such as the first railway mortars artillery used in combat, first ironclads to see combat, submarines deployed and saw the transition of smoothbore to rifled weapons.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 17, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> The thing I always found interesting about the Civil War, were the military firsts, such as the first railway mortars artillery used in combat, first ironclads to see combat, submarines deployed and saw the transition of smoothbore to rifled weapons.


War is the mother of invention...


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 17, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> War is the mother of invention...



Indeed it is...

The Civil War held the interest of a number of world powers, besides the British and French because it was casting off many of the traditional Napoleonic tactics which was the culmination of centuries of warfare.

The next big war to be fought that had all of the elements seen in the Civil War would be WWI.


----------



## Corsair82pilot (Jan 17, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> The next big war to be fought that had all of the elements seen in the Civil War would be WWI.



Which air force's tactics were most utilized in WWI? The North's or the South's?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 17, 2009)

Corsair82pilot said:


> Which air force's tactics were most utilized in WWI? The North's or the South's?



LOL...the North's observation balloon tactics were superior to the South's!

Though the South used the "extra tent lantern" trick at night to it's fullest, fooling the Northern balloonists into thinking there were more enemy troops in camp than really were...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 17, 2009)

Regardless of whether Lee was going to fight at Gettysburg, Grant had won at Vicksburg and that put the south at an extreme disadvantage. 

Once the Union armies solidified their holds on Tennessee, the handwriting was on the wall. No matter what the South did on one theater, it was at a severe disadvantage in the others.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 18, 2009)

I enjoy the ACW as a gamer, but I confess my knowledge is limited. I do have a few references, including "The Civil War" Shelby FooteBodley head, 1991, and "The history Of the American Civil War 1861-1865" Philip Katcher, Octapus Books, 2002 

Having read these and other books, it strike me that the best opportunity for the South to strike a strategically decisive blow occurred early in the war, after First Bull Run. Katchers book says "Finally, about 4.00pm, the confederates launched an attack on McDowells right flank, Slowly at first, the federals began to retire. a stray Confederate shell destroyed a wagon on the bridge over the run, and many volunteers began to panic. While the Regular Army Brigade withdrew in good order, volunteers began throwing away their arms and equipment. Their retreat di not stop until they had reached the outskirts of Washington itself. . Many Civilians, including the New York Congressman who had come to witnes the great vistory became Confederate prisoners. 

Jefferson Davis, unwilling to remain in Richmend arrived in the hour of victory. He was begged to alow an advance to Washington, but he refused"......

One wonders if the order to advance had been given, whether in fact the disorganized Confederate Brigades could have taken the city, and if so, whether this would have had an effect on the Union to the point of seeking terms for an armistice.

In "A House Divided" and "War Between the States" the designers think so. A capture of Washington in that boardgame forces the Union to srart looking for peace terms. It is not a surety, but the Union is at risk of surrendering if the city falls.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 18, 2009)

Very good point, Parsifal, and there are many cases where a decision like Pres. Davis made had a direct influence on the outcome of the war.

One of the weaknesses, if you can call it that, of the Confederacy, was that they were steeped in Victorian Chivalry. President Davis may have been afraid that a direct attack on Washington might have created an "ugly scene" and preferred to force the Union to the table by other means, but that's just speculation on my behalf.


----------



## renrich (Jan 18, 2009)

Mister Turtledove has already given his verdict on the War of Northern Aggression. In "Guns of the South" the South won the war after being supplied with AK47s and field rations by way of a time machine.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Jan 18, 2009)

> One of the weaknesses, if you can call it that, of the Confederacy, was that they were steeped in Victorian Chivalry. President Davis may have been afraid that a direct attack on Washington might have created an "ugly scene" and preferred to force the Union to the table by other means, but that's just speculation on my behalf



I'm inclined to agree. Studying the Civil War, one of the main points for the South that the North was wrong was there lack of "chivalry". Many Southern newspapers slandered the North and acted as though they were barbarians. If Davis had directly attacked Washington I believe the war would have ended very quickly


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jan 18, 2009)

renrich said:


> Mister Turtledove has already given his verdict on the War of Northern Aggression. In "Guns of the South" the South won the war after being supplied with AK47s and field rations by way of a time machine.



Yeah, I'd rather go with Newt Gengrich's version, even though the South lost in the end.


----------



## renrich (Jan 19, 2009)

Gingrich's version was more PC but I thought Turtledove's was more entertaining and inventive. Gingrich's alternative efforts on Pearl Harbor I have thought were very poorly done also.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 19, 2009)

renrich said:


> ... I thought Turtledove's was more entertaining and inventive



I only did Turtledove's World War; Earth vs The Race [ie space-lizards] and what an anti-climax the final book was - a real let-down.

Were those alternate US Civil War books any good?


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jan 19, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> I only did Turtledove's World War; Earth vs The Race [ie space-lizards] and what an anti-climax the final book was - a real let-down.
> 
> Were those alternate US Civil War books any good?



I enjoyed them, I read all three books in one week. Haven't read Turtledove's work on the Civil War, but Gengrich's books sounded more believeable.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 19, 2009)

the war was stupid on both sides and should never have happened.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 19, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> the war was stupid on both sides and should never have happened.




I can agree that it was stupid, or at least led to "solutions", if you could call them that even today have affected in a bad way the development of American society.

But, given the differences that existed between North and South, prior to the war, I can hardly see anything but a war detemining the issue. The war was supposedly over States Rights, and the emancipation issue (which came later really). But I think in reality the war was fought over the future development of American society.....I think the South wanted an essentially agrarian class based society, whilst the North was much more broad based in its democratic principals, and sought to achieve that by relatively tight central control of government.

It wasnt that the South was less democratic, rather that the North needed more centrised control given its higher level of urbanisation, and industrialization. As societies urbanize, they generally liberalize as well


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 19, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I can agree that it was stupid, or at least led to "solutions", if you could call them that even today have affected in a bad way the development of American society.
> 
> But, given the differences that existed between North and South, prior to the war, I can hardly see anything but a war detemining the issue. The war was supposedly over States Rights, and the emancipation issue (which came later really). But I think in reality the war was fought over the future development of American society.....I think the South wanted an essentially agrarian class based society, whilst the North was much more broad based in its democratic principals, and sought to achieve that by relatively tight central control of government.
> 
> It wasnt that the South was less democratic, rather that the North needed more centrised control given its higher level of urbanisation, and industrialization. As societies urbanize, they generally liberalize as well


It would all have happened without war when in 20 years the North had all the money. The South had all of the money in the 1860s, Tobacco and Cotton were tremendous cash crops and they were filthy rich off of them.

If the issue had been dragged out a little longer, it would have become clear that agrarian societies would be poor by the late 19th centuries and the south would have had to urbanize.

Slavery was dealt with sans warfare throughout Europe and the South would have had to bow to pressure and grandfather it out eventually. It could have been done without a war.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 20, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> I enjoyed them, I read all three books in one week


There's more than three books, I seem to remember there's about six; avoid the last one


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 20, 2009)

Britain, at least, resorted to violence to crush slavery - the Royal Navy spent some decades eradicating the last enclaves of illegal slavery around the Empire. Granted, there was no violent disagreement over the principle of ending slavery, but we still had to fight to make it a reality. 

As I have said, my reading on this topic is limited to literally a handful of books, but McPherson's _Battle Cry of Freedom_ certainly conveys an impression that war was all but inevitable due to the polarization of opinion between the pro-slavery and States Rights South and the pro-emancipation and federal government North. I know there's a whole bunch of oversimplifications in there, but that was the impression i got from my reading 8) 

On the subject of Civil War reading, anybody know of any good naval studies of the War? I'm a bit of a naval history nut and that era is woefully absent from my library  

Cheers

BT


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jan 20, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> There's more than three books, I seem to remember there's about six; avoid the last one



 Huh, six! Weird, maybe I missed those.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 20, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Huh, six! Weird, maybe I missed those.



My bad - 7 books
Mercifully, it misses out the last book

Amazon.com: "Worldwar Series by Harry Turtledove"

don't remember any of that cover art...


----------



## Messy1 (Jan 20, 2009)

davparlr said:


> I have a purely Southern view point, having grown up in the deep South and having at least one ancestor who fought for the Rebel side. I remember clearly “white” and “colored” drinking fountains. I remember thinking how stupid it was when my mother chided me for trying to drink out of a “colored” fountain. My high school was Escambia High, and we were the “Rebels”. I had a little Rebel flag on the antenna of my ’54 Ford four door, not a cool car! I only did that because my high school mascot was the “Rebels”. There was much animosity when integration came and the name had to be changed. That animosity, however, changed in a flash when a young football player named Emmett Smith put on an Escambia uniform.
> 
> With unlimited, relatively speaking, industry, manpower, weaponry, materiel, technology, and Navy, the North should have, and did, win. It should have done it much quicker.
> 
> ...



Good post davparlr. The last paragraph makes very good sense to me. I agree with you that the Confederate flag should not be flown in today's world.

Also Bill had some good points in his response before this one. Slavery only became a serious point when Lincoln realized that he could no longer ignore the issue totally.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jan 20, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> My bad - 7 books
> Mercifully, it misses out the last book
> 
> Amazon.com: "Worldwar Series by Harry Turtledove"
> ...



Wait, do you mean the books written by Harry Turtledove, or Newt Gengrich; because I was referring to Newt Gengrich.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 21, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Wait, do you mean the books written by Harry Turtledove, or Newt Gengrich; because I was referring to Newt Gengrich.


lol sorry
I mis-read you, I thought that you meant the World War series


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jan 21, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> lol sorry
> I mis-read you, I thought that you meant the World War series



Heh, that's okay. I was just confused, thinking I missed more of Gengrich's books. I kind of have a small liking to historical fiction. Ever read Peter Tsoura's "Diaster at D-day"?


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 21, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> I kind of have a small liking to historical fiction.
> Ever read Peter Tsoura's "Disaster at D-day"?


It can be clever, entertaining and stimulating if it's done right. 

Not read it, if it showed up it would be at the back of a long queue; I have books dotted around the house, all waiting their turn.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jan 21, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> It can be clever, entertaining and stimulating if it's done right.
> 
> Not read it, if it showed up it would be at the back of a long queue; I have books dotted around the house, all waiting their turn.



That's cool. I have a bunch of books that I haven't read, but should.


----------



## renrich (Jan 23, 2009)

I still believe the War Between the States could have been avoided. Lincoln made a mistake by trying to resupply Fort Sumter. When he tried that, and the guns opened up to prevent it ,the fat was in the fire. Lincoln then called up 75000 troops and Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina and Arkansas refused to furnish the troops and they finally seceded. If Fort Sumter had not happened and no armed conflict had taken place, without the above mentioned states being in secession, over a period of time reconciliation could have taken place and with some of the bones of contention about states rights settled, the union could have been preserved. There had already been mentioned the federal government buying the slaves and relocating them back to Africa and that could have been implemented for a lot less money than the war cost.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 23, 2009)

I think it would have come to war sooner or later. There would have been an eventual attempt to emancipate the slaves across the nation. This would threaten the entire Southern way of life, as well as bringing issues of state's rights to the fore. Given that there were armed militias available to both sides in Kentucky before the War actually began, and you have a powder keg waiting to be lit.

Also, I believe Lincoln had no choice but to relieve Sumpter. He was being openly defied by a number of states. If he hadn't answered the challenge, I believe he would have been removed and replaced by someone who would. There were two diametrically opposed political and social systems operating in the US by 1861, it seems that they would have to have come to blows sooner rather than later. A similar situation prevailed in England before our Civil Wars 200 years earlier - war was a matter of when, not if.


----------



## Amsel (Jan 23, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> There were two diametrically opposed political and social systems operating in the US by 1861, it seems that they would have to have come to blows sooner rather than later. A similar situation prevailed in England before our Civil Wars 200 years earlier - war was a matter of when, not if.


Seems like we are heading down the same path again in 2009.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 23, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> I think it would have come to war sooner or later. There would have been an eventual attempt to emancipate the slaves across the nation. This would threaten the entire Southern way of life, as well as bringing issues of state's rights to the fore. Given that there were armed militias available to both sides in Kentucky before the War actually began, and you have a powder keg waiting to be lit.
> 
> Also, I believe Lincoln had no choice but to relieve Sumpter. He was being openly defied by a number of states. If he hadn't answered the challenge, I believe he would have been removed and replaced by someone who would. There were two diametrically opposed political and social systems operating in the US by 1861, it seems that they would have to have come to blows sooner rather than later. A similar situation prevailed in England before our Civil Wars 200 years earlier - war was a matter of when, not if.


A grandfather clause could have emancipated the slaves bloodlessly. "All slaves born after this date are hereby free."


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 23, 2009)

The issue of Slavery was a definate hot-point, but the problems that were causing numerous fist-fights in the senate was over States rights and the disproportionate taxes and representation. The North had more representation in Washington than the South because of the higher population in the northern states thus the Southern politicians were outnumbered and this did not help the tensions any.

A high percentage of slaves owners were from the North, and they stood a lot to lose if the slaves were freed, so that was a hotly contested item at the time.

An interesting thing to read, would be the Confederate Constitution and accompanying bills. It's fairly modern in many respects, one thing of note, was the termination of slave importation, either by overseas dealers, or by exchange from the North. Another item of interest was the prohitition of thier elected representatives and heads of state from accepting "gifts and gratuities" over a specific amount, from foreign delegates, heads of state, etc.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 24, 2009)

Clay - there still would have been fighting. The South would not have given up it's slaves, and therefore it's entire socio-economic structure, without a fight. Nor would the individual states surrendered their citizens _right_ to hold slaves to federal authority without a struggle. After all, wasn't State's right to self-government a large part of what the war was about?

Amsel - I hope for all of our sakes that you are wrong. The internecine political strife in the US is bad enough as it is, IMHO, and any worsening of it will simply leave the US open to attack from all of threats it fears the most, as well as removing the country's ability to respond to the current economic situation.


----------



## Amsel (Jan 24, 2009)

Bomb Taxi, the political strife in the U.S. is bad and will get worse. The very tenents that have caused Americas greatness are under attack. The very peculararities that set us apart from other nations are being attacked and dismantled by a very small minority and their radical judges. It is inevitable as well as it is imperitive that liberty loving Americans stand up for free markets and less taxes. We must fight the growing federal goverments tendancy to want to control every bit of our lives and tax as much money out of us that they can get. Many of our citizens understand that the feds are squandering our hard earned money on unpopular wars, inept social programs, and you name it. 

Secession is as real today as it was in the 1850's. The civil war was not about the slaves. It was about the individual states rights to decide what is best for it's own citizens. We are beginning to see movements in states for secession. The most recent being the State of Montana and the State of Vermont with growing secessionist movements. The root cause of the Civil War was the same as the motivation for the American Revolution. *If a union with a governing entity is not in the best interest of the people then the union should be dissolved. * 



> “When in the Course of human Events it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another…”



That was not a careless choice of chance words thrown together in a hap hazard manner, those were precise words to describe the exact condition that exists between one party of a political alliance and another.
What our Founding Fathers said, and it was true, is that we are not “bound” in a Political Arrangement, but only “banded” together with the other in a limited agreement. There are certainly limits to such an agreement.

Just as the Colonies were banded to the English Government and Crown, all the States (Independent Nations) that had joined the American Union were banded together, and not bonded together.

Our Colonial Ancestors were banded in a Political Union which could only last for as long as it was mutually agreeable to all parties concerned, and the same is true for the States banded to one another in the American Union which was Legally Formed, and Legally Dissolved.


----------



## renrich (Jan 24, 2009)

No, he did not have to resupply Sumter. There were already a number of federal installations that had been taken over by the South without any fireworks. It was a very provocative move by Lincoln. Some of the southern states that had not seceded were the most powerful and influential states in the South and there was a lot of sentiment against seccession in the states already seceded. The slave owners in the South were a minority and the non slave owners were only against emancipation because they were afraid of what a bunch of freed slaves might do from a lawlessness point of view. Slavery was already a dying institution in civilised countries and the South was definitely civilised. Cooler heads could have prevailed possibly if Lincoln had kept his cool.


----------



## tpikdave (Feb 8, 2009)

*Arkansas*


----------



## Amsel (Feb 8, 2009)

tpikdave said:


> *Arkansas*


Sorry, you cut out.


----------



## renrich (Mar 8, 2009)

Am reading an interesting book, a biography of JEB Stuart. An anecdote in the book caught my eye. Stuart and others had a Christmas Eve dinner in December, 1862, that included turkey, chicken and ham. The dinner almost did not include turkey because some troops, it was suspected to be the Texas Brigade, pilfered some of the turkeys. An armed guard was placed on the turkeys to prevent further pilferage. I had always heard the Texans were famous for foraging. In fact Lee was quoted as saying."When the Texans are out foraging, the chickens have to roost mighty high." Another interesting point in the book. The CSA cavalry soldiers had to furnish their own mounts and were paid 40 cents a day for rent of their horses. The policy was that if a soldier ran out of horses, he was given a furlough to return home to replenish their mounts. Sometimes soldiers were suspected of mistreating their horses so they could take off for home and often, especially in the winter the cavalry units were practically skeleton forces due to the men gone to get horses. Explains why there were not cavalry units in the Army of Northern Virginia from Texas. Another point made was at the beginning of the war, Virginia, Tennessee and Texas had the greatest population of horses in the Confederacy.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Mar 8, 2009)

renrich said:


> Another interesting point in the book. The CSA cavalry soldiers had to furnish their own mounts and were paid 40 cents a day for rent of their horses. The policy was that if a soldier ran out of horses, he was given a furlough to return home to replenish their mounts. Sometimes soldiers were suspected of mistreating their horses so they could take off for home and often, especially in the winter the cavalry units were practically skeleton forces due to the men gone to get horses. Explains why there were not cavalry units in the Army of Northern Virginia from Texas. Another point made was at the beginning of the war, Virginia, Tennessee and Texas had the greatest population of horses in the Confederacy.




Very interesting you should mention this. On my father's side (that is, my American half of the family), we have a grandfather (3 or 4 "great", can't remember) who was the regimental Chaplain of the 101st Ohio Volunteers. We have only one original letter written by him in our posession which was written immediately after the Battle of Chickamgua, where he gave Last-rites to the dead and dying of both sides. In his letter, he mentions that they had captured a good deal of Rebel cavalry troops, all without their horses, but they all looked healthy. I believe he was implying that the Confederates had eaten their horses.

Unrelated, but horse steak is popular in France, and I can remember during some of my childhood years spent there I had eaten it myself many times. It's actually really delicious!


----------



## renrich (Mar 8, 2009)

Very interesting Arsenal. The Texas cavalry units were involved in that part of the war where Chickamauga was fought. Terry's Texas Rangers(8th Texas Cavalry) were in the Army of Tennessee, but Longstreet's Corps had come over from Virginia to help out and were present also. The Texas Brigade was in Longstreet's Corps and played a prominent part in the battle but they were infantry. If the cavalry ate their horses they must have done so when the horse was of no further use alive. Bet they were tough steaks. It seems that the real difficulty came about when it was winter and no green grass was available and forage and oats and corn had to brought in from far away. Even in the winter, though, when the infantry was mostly in winter quarters, the cavalry was still involved in picket duty, scouting and raiding. We, who are intersted in war during that time tend to think mostly about the men involved but feeding, doctoring and taking care of the huge amount of animals needed to transport cavalry, pull supply wagons and artillery must have played a major role in the outcome of the war. The infantry is supposed to have had a low regard for cavalry, who they supposed just rode around and rarely got into action and who took lighter casualties than the infantry. One jeer that was supposed to have been uttered by CSA infantry when cavalry rode by was, "Come down out of that hat, I know you are in there, I can see your legs hanging out."


----------



## imalko (Sep 12, 2009)

This is little of topic, but not quite as it is related to the American Civil War and I know there are people here who can answer this question I have...

What is the meaning of the "Bonnie Blue Flag" (overall blue flag with single white star) in the Confederacy? What is its origin? Is this somehow related to the state of Texas, as I know that this state to this day has single white star on its flag? As I understand Confederacy during its existence changed national flag several times. Was a Bonnie Blue Flag an Confederate national flag at one time, or was this only some sort of 'unofficial' flag of the South?


----------



## Messy1 (Sep 12, 2009)

Found this on wikipedia imalko.

The Bonnie Blue Flag, a single white star on a blue field, was the flag of the short-lived Republic of West Florida.[1] In September 1810, settlers in the Spanish territory of West Florida revolted against the Spanish government and proclaimed an independent republic. The Bonnie Blue Flag was raised at the Spanish fort in Baton Rouge on September 23, 1810. On December 6, 1810, West Florida was annexed by the United States and the republic ceased to exist, after a life of 74 days.
In 1836, The Bonnie Blue served as the inspiration for the first flag of the Republic of Texas, known as the Burnet Flag. It was replaced in 1839 by the currently used Lone Star Flag, which also bears a single star.


----------

