who should have won the american civil war

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.

Click to expand...

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.

syscom3 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

mkloby said:

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

Click to expand...

I have noticed it!!!!

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

Amsel said:

I have noticed it!!!!

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

"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.

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.

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!

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

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

Click to expand...

Grant won.

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.

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.

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

What happened on the first day was irrelevant.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Yes you are right.

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.