Foote did a 3 vol series that I have been saving for when I have more time to enjoy them, which will hopefully be next winter (and the new house will even have a fireplace!)
Posted on 07/15/2008 1:45:31 PM PDT by GOP_Raider
The South failed to take advantage of its military victories and fought a defensive war. Had the Confederate forces taken advantage of their victory at First Manassas, they could have easily captured Washington while the Union forces were in disarray. From there, they could well have taken Baltimore and central and southern Maryland, where pro-secessionists were better organized. At that point, the Confederates would have been an imminent threat to the rich industrial and agricultural areas of southeastern Pennsylvania. President Lincoln might then have been forced to end hostilities. Recognition by Britain and France would have soon followed. Remember that the only two powers to establish official diplomatic ties were the Papal States and the German Duchy of Saxe-Coburg, which was ruled by the brother of Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's husband. Saxe-Coburg was no doubt a "stalking horse" for Britain.
There is a lesson here, which should have been heeded in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. You cannot ensure victory with half measures. You can suffer via overextension, as both Germany and Japan did in World War II. However, the failure of the South to invade the North until well over one year after Fort Sumter was a major error and fortuitous for Lincoln's goal of preserving the Union.
Foote did a 3 vol series that I have been saving for when I have more time to enjoy them, which will hopefully be next winter (and the new house will even have a fireplace!)
Pa made more sense as he got to eat off their land, get their shoes and other useful things all without pissing off a border/sympathetic state like Maryland.
McClellan would have destroyed the Army of Northern Virginia at the Battle of Antietam -- if he had only had good intelligence as to its actual size.
Even if you have no intention of becoming a follower of Civil War history, this is a book that will serve you well historically.
McClellan DID have good information at Antietam.
He had Lee’s “Lost Order” - which detailed out who was in command of how many troops and where they were supposed to be.
He assumed it to be a fake and decided to do nothing - convinced of the fact that Lee dramatically outnumbered him.
A quick reconnaisance by Union cavalry could have proven that the Lost Order was in fact, accurate.
Bookmark for later
Culturally, economically and geographically, the people in WV have a lot more in common with the populations of western PA and southern OH than they do with those in Richmond, Norfolk or Arlington. It was to their advantage to align with the north, and I would guess too much trouble for the south to occupy and defend the area.
Is that the battle where McClellan had the South's battle plan(the plans had been found wrapped around some cigars) but refused to believe them?
I may be on my third tour by then. I try to re-read them every year. There's always something to revisit or understand better.
Never mind. Mpls Steve aswered my question.
Which was his personal tag line if they had had the internet then.
Great thread. Im not in authority enough to answer any of your questions but I do know that Ken Burns Civil War was about the best series that’s ever been put on TV.
My God! “Non sequitur” as yet to chime in. Amazing.
Self-Ping for later answering.
Both sides saw the "theater of war" as being along the Eastern Seaboard, mostly. This is where both seats of government resided. It was also where the majority of rail traffic existed at the time. Keep in mind, this was the first "transportation war".
But, beyond that, the far West was too far away, too inaccessible, to be considered a theater. And the South was too stretched as far as personnel, equipment, foodstuffs, manufacturing and transportation to extend themselves beyond their controlled area of interest.
I'm guessing you are a) retired and b) not a wife :)
You're very astute :)
If I have nothing to read I'm virtually lost. And since I've nothing at this time, I've decided to re-read the book I mentioned above; "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson. It's the best single volume history of the war I'm aware of.
There would definitely have been a second war.
There were several "sectional crises" that eventually led up to the war, all of which had to do with western expansion and the status of slaves in the new states.
Had the South won, westward expansion would still have been an issue, and now there would have been two nations involved, with pre-existing bad blood between them. The war would definitely have begun anew, in the west -- probably within 5 years of the end of the previous one.
This war would NOT have lasted into the 20th Century, because the preponderance of Northern industrial might (which effectively won the first time) would still be relevant.
The Union badly defeated the Confederacy in the western war almost from the very beginning. I think the primary reason is that the western war spanned a huge territory, and depended much more on logistics. The Union had much better logistical capacity ... and they also had Gen. Thomas to figure out how to use it. Logistics would have defeated the South in a subsequent western war as well.
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.