who should have won the american civil war

[Amsel]

"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]

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]

.... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[BombTaxi]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.