It's a disgrace that the Southerners outnumbered four to one kept off invasion forces for over four years and Great Britain and France didn't support them after all that time. It's a disgrace that conservatives, who supposedly call for smaller government, praise a man who ballooned the national debt, introduced national printed money not based on anything, and extended the first federal tax in the history of this nation
You're right Walt. It's a disgrace. It's a d#mn disgrace
This is typical of the disinformation spread by the SCV and others.
There were more slave owners in the south than there were real property owners in the north.
"It will thus appear that the slaveholders of the South, so far from constituting, numerically, an insignificant portion of its people, as has been malignantly alleged, make up an aggregate greater in relative proportion than the holders of any other species of property whatever, in any part of the world; and that of no other property can it be said, with equal truthfulness, that it is an interest of the whole community.
While every other family in the States I have specially referred to are slaveholders, but one family in every three and a half families in Maine, New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, are holders of agricultural land; and in European states the proportion is almost indefinitely less. The proportion which the slaveholders of the South bear to the entire population is greater than that of the owners of land or houses, agricultural stock, State, bank, or other corporation securities anywhere else. No political economist will deny this. Nor is that all. Even in the States which are among the largest slaveholding, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee, the land proprietors outnumber nearly two to one, in relative proportion, the owners of the same property in Maine, Massachusetts, and Connecticut; and if the average number of slaves held by each family throughout the South be but nine, and if one half of the whole number of slaveholders own under five slaves, it will be seen how preposterous is the allegation of our enemies, that the slaveholding class is an organized wealthy aristocracy. The poor men of the South are the holders of one to five slaves, and it would be equally consistent with truth and justice to say that they represent, in reality, its slaveholding interest."
-- J.E.B. DeBow, 1860
DeBow was the taker of the 1850 census.
Now this text has been posted to you personally on numerous occasions and you still spout the neo-confederate lies. You ARE a member of the SCV, right?
Why on earth should such lying spew as I quote you above be allowed in our classrooms?
Walt
Whites in the north were a little more than three times more numerous than whites in the south.
The insurgent area was actually larger than the loyal area. Defensive technology was in the ascendant. The rebels had every advantage, but they blew it.
It was a surprise to me when I realized it, but the rebels had no major success outside of Virginia throughout the entire war excepting Chickamauga. Grant and later Sherman marched almost unchecked from Forts Henry and Donelson, through Shiloh, Jackson, Nashville, Chattanooga, through Atlanta and off to the sea. They -always- had their way with the rebels.
Lee had as little success outside Virginia as Pope, Hooker and Burnside had within it.
"The North had a potential manpower superiority of more than three to one (counting only white men) and Union armed forces had an actual superiority of two to one during most of the war. In economic resources and logistical capacity the northern advantage was even greater. Thus, in this explanation, the Confederacy fought against overwhelming odds; its defeat was inevitable. But this explanation has not satisfied a good many analysts. History is replete with examples of peoples who have won or defended their independence against greater odds: the Netherlands against the Spain of Philip II; Switzerland against the Hapsburg empire; the American rebels of 1776 against mighty Britain; North Vietnam against the United States of 1970. Given the advantages of fighting on the defensive in its own territory with interior lines in which stalemate would be victory against a foe who must invade, conquer, occupy, and destroy the capacity to resist, the odds faced by the South were not formidable.
Rather, as another category of interpretations has it, internal divisions fatally weakened the Confederacy: the state-rights conflict between certain govern on and the Richmond government; the disaffection of non-slaveholders from a rich man's war and poor man's fight; libertarian opposition to necessary measures such as conscription and the suspension of habeas corpus; the lukewarm commitment to the Confederacy by quondam Whigs and unionists; the disloyalty of slaves who defected to the enemy whenever they had a chance; growing doubts among slaveowners themselves about the justice of their peculiar institution and their cause. "So the Confederacy succumbed to internal rather than external causes," according to numerous historians. The South suffered from a "weakness in morale," a "loss of the will to fight." The Confederacy did not lack "the means to continue the struggle," but "the will to do so." --BattleCry of Freedom, P. 855 by James McPherson
His sources:
Richard E. Beringer, Herman Hattaway, Archer Jones, and William N. Still jr., Why the South Lost the Civil War (Athens, Ga., 1986), 439, 5S; Kenneth M. Stampp, The Imperiled Union: Essays on the Background of the Civil War (New York, 1980),255 Clement Eaton, A History of the Southern Confederacy (Collier Books ed., New York, 1961), 250
My emphasis
Walt