“The North won because their cause was just and their people felt that it was worth fighting and winning. The South lost because their cause was shit and their people caved like a cheap cardboard box.”
LoL
That’s the funnest thing you have said so far, soo disconnected from reality...
The South fought feverishly, with little to nothing against a a well-funded enemy more then twice their size.
And still they inflicted more loses on that enemy then they themselves suffered, while managing to drag out the war for 4 long years.
As if being out numbered was not bad enough the south was even more heavily out gunned, Cut off from the rest of the world and any real industry they were forced to uses what little they had to start with and what they could capture from the north to fight.
By comparison the North had an industrial war machine, they were well funded and vastly superior to the south in numbers.
Even still the north had to implement an oppressive draft, the income tax for the first time, and it had to end the free banking era as to enable the Federal government to “print” money.
a lot of this was because outside of Lincoln and the radical republicans who were left controlling the remaining governments a lot of folk in the north did not want to fight the south.
A lot of folk openly pointed out the utter contradictions of Lincolns causes and the cause of American Constitutionality and natural rights. And many of them were arrested or otherwise shut down for their speech.
Lincoln was a tyrant at home just as he was a tyrant in what he was doing to the south. The north was not well motivated indeed they didn’t even start winning battles when the south invaded the north.
Lincoln “had to”(according to his apologist) disregard much of our constitution just to deal with the “resistance” in the north towards is unconstitutional war of tyrannical conquest.
You tell me which side was more motivate to win. The one that had every advantage in the world and still struggled or the one that had nothing and yet still managed to fight until they had nothing left.
I noticed that reality and you don't seem to collide in the same sentence all that much either.
The South fought feverishly, with little to nothing against a a well-funded enemy more then twice their size.
And in the end their armies faded away through desertion and their cause collapsed like the cheap box I spoke of. On the other hand, the Union army at the end of the war was overwhelmingly volunteer and was as strong or stronger than any other time during the war. So which side believed in their cause more strongly?
And still they inflicted more loses on that enemy then they themselves suffered, while managing to drag out the war for 4 long years.
The Union had about 110,000 battle deaths out of an army of between 2.5 and 2.75 million. That's a loss of 4 to 4.4 percent depending on which figure you use. The confederates had 94,000 battle deaths out of an army of between 750,000 and 1.25 million. That's a loss of between 7.5% and 12.5% depending on which figure you use. As a percentage of soldiers engaged the Union made the South pay a much higher price for their losing effort. Was it worth it?
Even still the north had to implement an oppressive draft, the income tax for the first time, and it had to end the free banking era as to enable the Federal government to “print” money.
I would point out that the south instituted a draft earlier than the North (April 1862), instituted an income tax, and printed money like crazy long before the Union did. Plus at the same time they instituted conscription they forcibly extended all enlistments for the duration of the war, something Lincoln never did. As a result the Union army could have faded away several times during the rebellion but didn't. Why? Because those Union volunteers stayed and fought for what they thought was right. Confederates stayed because they had to. Maybe that's why when the going got tough the rebels went home?
A lot of folk openly pointed out the utter contradictions of Lincolns causes and the cause of American Constitutionality and natural rights. And many of them were arrested or otherwise shut down for their speech.
Studies have shown that you had a better chance of being locked up without trial for speaking out against your government in a Jeff Davis confederacy than an Abe Lincoln United States. I would refer you to Mark Neeley's works on the subject, both North and South.
Lincoln was a tyrant at home just as he was a tyrant in what he was doing to the south. The north was not well motivated indeed they didn’t even start winning battles when the south invaded the north.
Absolute nonsense. Not only was Lincoln not a tyrant but the Union was winning victory after victory in the west almost from day one. You make the common rebel mistake that the war was fought only in the east by Bobby Lee. The fact of the matter is that Grant was kicking rebel butt from early in 1862 on.
Lincoln “had to”(according to his apologist) disregard much of our constitution just to deal with the “resistance” in the north towards is unconstitutional war of tyrannical conquest.
When it comes to disregarding their own constitution, Lincoln didn't hold a candle to Jeff Davis or the rebel congress. They totally ignored the third article of their constitution, Davis made promises that he could not legally deliver on, their contempt for the rule of law was complete and unabashed.
You tell me which side was more motivate to win. The one that had every advantage in the world and still struggled or the one that had nothing and yet still managed to fight until they had nothing left.
Southron BS aside, I'd say the side that won was more motivated. In addition to having the better cause.