Posted on 03/17/2015 8:14:26 AM PDT by iowamark
By March 1865, it was obvious to all but the most die-hard Confederates that the South was going to lose the war. Whether that loss was inevitable is an unanswerable question, but considering various “what if” scenarios has long been a popular exercise among historians, novelists and Civil War buffs...
Perhaps the most common scenario centers on the actions of Gen. Robert E. Lee...
What many fail to recognize is that Northerners were just as committed to winning as the Southerners. Some saw it as a war to free the slaves, while others fought to ensure that their republican form of government survived. Northerners believed that America was the world’s last great hope for democracy, and if the South destroyed the Union by force, that light of liberty might be extinguished forever. Lincoln once said the North must prove “that popular government is not an absurdity. We must settle this question now, whether in a free government the minority have the right to break up the government whenever they choose. If we fail it will go far to prove the incapability of the people to govern themselves.”
The South may have been fighting to preserve a way of life and to protect its perceived constitutional rights, but so was the North. If the Southern people kept fighting even after the devastating defeats at Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Chattanooga, why should we not believe the North would have kept on fighting even if the Confederates had won Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Chattanooga? The fact is that both sides were equally brave and equally dedicated to their cause. Commitment and morale being the same, the stronger side prevailed.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Yes I have.
Ping
Which “states rights” in particular?
>>First, their agricultural concern (and slave ownership) was peripheral to the purpose of their lives. Not the focus of their lives.<<
Nice try! Slave ownership is slave ownership. Slave ownership for “agricultural concern” whether it be in Maryland, Virginia, or Mississippi or Alabama is still slave ownership for “agricultural concern.”
As was stated previously, the vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves. They fought for the right to secede.
Regardless of what the Civil War was fought over, and regardless of who won, “You have a Republic, if you can keep it,” died when that war was over. State’s rights began to die and Fedzilla was born.
Oh yeah. Forgot that. I guess their starting a war was to hurry the ending of it. Funny folks them Johnny Rebs.
#46
Johnson was not Vice President in 1863. Hannibal Hamlin was. Hamlin would have probably been elected easily in 1864 because he was very loyal to both Lincoln and the Republicans. Think of the other Johnson in 1964 after Kennedy was assassinated. He was seen as loyal to Kennedy.
Lincoln only chose Johnson (a Democrat) as his VP in 1864 because Johnson was a Southern Unionist (Tennessee). Lincoln was by that point looking to reconcile the sectional differences and looking to the post war period. He thought having a southern VP would help in that effort.
5. If the south had freed all of her slaves—drafted them to fight it would have taken away a big part of the Northern rational for the war.
LOL. It would have taken away 100% of the South's rational for fighting the war.
The vast majority fought because they were drafted. Given their choice, they would have been home with their families.
IF the South would have won Antietam or Gettysburg they still only could hope for a Peace treaty. They could not have occupied the North. What... tell all those Irish that they had to quit their jobs because the Slaves were taking them?
And then a few decades later, the South would have been attacked again because the South would have continued to rely on slaves instead of industry, becoming weak, while the rest of the world joined the industrial revolution.
One doesn’t have to seceded to leave the good ol’ US of A. Admittedly, the federal government was forgiving and generous to the treasonous rebels, but there were still who left for other places.
Bkmk
Well clearly you need to take a course in reading comprehension then. With that being the case I again for give you because you clearly do not understand.
You’re a smart*ss who won’t answer my question so you continue to try and insult me.
See, I comprehend just fine !
In May 1787, a Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia to address the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation. Some Americans felt it was an aristocratic plot, but every state felt a need to do something to improve the situation, and smaller states felt a stronger central government could protect them against domination by the larger states. What emerged was a new constitution “in order to provide a more perfect union.” It established the three branches of the federal government—executive, legislative, and judicial—and provided for two houses within the legislature. That Constitution, though amended 27 times, has governed the United States of America ever since. It failed to clearly address two critical issues, however.
It made no mention of the future of slavery. (The Northwest Ordinance, not the Constitution, prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territories, that area north of the Ohio River and along the upper Mississippi River.) It also did not include any provision for a procedure by which a state could withdraw from the Union, or by which the Union could be wholly dissolved. To have included such provisions would have been, as some have pointed out, to have written a suicide clause into the Constitution.
But the issues of slavery and secession would take on towering importance in the decades to come, with no clear-cut guidance from the Founding Fathers for resolving them.
Where’s the treason?
Decades. Certainly till the turn of the century if not longer.
After Antietam, maybe. The U.K. would likely have stepped in and tried to broker a peace. But by Gettysburg that ship had long since sailed and a rebel victory wouldn't lead to much of anything except another battle in another area.
As I mentioned in my last post on this subject, the Harry Turtledove alternative history series on this topic is really enjoyable to read. That series runs from the civil War to the end of an alternative WWII. One of his favorite plot twists is to take small, pivotal, events, turn them upside down and then suggest an outcome. Do you remember the orders from General Lee that were lost just before a battle and then found by Union troops? Turtledove has those order s being found by Confederate troops, thus eliminating the opsec failure.
Had the South won her independence there’s little doubt the Confederacy and the Union would have remained enemies. In order to hurt the South’s economic output, there’s no doubt the Union would have encouraged slaves to come north. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have funneled them up to Canada or ferried them to Liberia. It also doesn’t mean that the Union wouldn’t have created a colony for freed slaves somewhere in the plains. They had already done this with Indians, why not black slaves as well?
But Quantrill, Anderson, and Clement were relatively small scale in the grand scheme of things. (You could include Mosby’s Raiders in that “small scale” description). I was talking about a large scale generalized guerilla war WITHOUT a conventional component. Imagine all the fighting men raised for the Confederate Armies instead engaged in hit and run type operations and returning back to blend in with the population. It might not have ultimately had any more success than the conventional operation did, but it certainly makes you wonder if such a large scale guerilla operation might not have given the South a better shot.
The simple truth is that the South never had ANY chance of winning a conventional war against the North. Their only chance in the actual event was to create enough political discord in the North to cause the North to abandon the war effort. Guerilla war may well have given the South a better chance for a military victory. Obviously, we’ll never know, but I think it’s an interesting idea.
Certainly refusing to allow the 6th Army to break out of the Stalingrad pocket was colossally stupid. That was in keeping with the way Hitler thought war should be fought. He had no conception of the value of a strategic retreat. He always was pushing his forces forward, or failing the ability to move forward, at least die holding every inch of ground already taken. The refusal to retreat from Stalingrad is quite in keeping with that notion of warfare. The fact that Goering told Hitler that the army could be supplied was just confirmation to Hitler that retreat should not be an option. Hitler wanted to believe Goering so there was no way he would have even considered that the idea was completely unrealistic.
Having said that, your point about Stalingrad’s strategic value is taken, but nonetheless taking Stalingrad was NOT the primary goal of the campaign. The primary goal of the campaign was control of the Caucus oil fields. That objective would have been far more valuable than Stalingrad. The Germans could have bypassed Stalingrad and drove toward the Caucus, thereby preserving a significant amount of their fighting ability. Going after Stalingrad was not as colossal a blunder as refusing to break out of the pocket there, but it was nonetheless a mistake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.