who should have won the american civil war

[dinos7]

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]

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]

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

 

[reddragon]

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]

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?]

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]

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]

I think it isn't a hard question for the Blacks to answer.

And this means?

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

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]

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]

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.

Should go there some time. That in Arkansaw to?

 

[syscom3]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.