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 ...
For one thing, that Jose Illegal from Oregon's dog doesn't get to vote... :)
Slavery is communism, communism is slavery. Nothing capitalistic about it. No argument to the contrary is valid.
The Civil War was America’s first war against communism. The good guys won.
But they tended to have wives and children. In some states close to 50% of all families had slaves. That's a better statistic to judge just how important it was.
Now, examining the working conditions of early factories in the North...
Those factory workers didn't have to worry about waking some morning and finding their wives and children sold out from under them.
Really Hitlers decisions were not brilliant. And the Germans were not 10 foot tall unbeatables. Their main success was in 39 and 40 rolling over unprepared militaries with a new tactic. France, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands,, none of them could believe that 20 yeas after WWI someone would really start another war. So they were unprepared.
Hitler and the Nazis “brilliance” was the equivalent of the “knockout game” being played. Sucker punching an unprepared victim.
But they were stopped when they went against England. Their navy was sunk when it sallied forth and spent the war bottled up in port. Then they attacked Russia and in 6 months were defeated at Stalingrad, then fought a steady defeat to destruction.
The simple fact is that when they faced anyone ready for them, they lost always. The Brits, the USA, Russia. I know that’s upsetting to German military fanboys, but its a hard fact.
The Confederacy actually sent an "ambassador" to the Court of St. James's to curry favor with Queen Victoria, but her ministers refused to even meet with him and snubbed him very publicly until he finally got the hint and went home.
Early on, the Brits had supplied guns, ammunition, and even warships to the Confederates, and when the Union forcibly removed two diplomats from an English ship, many in Britain declared it an act of war and demanded action against the North. But the crisis was defused when Lincoln freed the diplomats and apologized for the mistake.
Washington was ringed by over 60 forts, and at the time of Gettysburg had a garrison of close to 25,000 men. Lee's army after Gettysburg wasn't a whole lot larger and he had all those wounded to deal with and little ammunition left.
The South's biggest advantage was that they were fighting for their homes and their way of life. Had they attempted conquest, they would have lost that strength. They would have had no chance of conquering the North.
Were the 600,000 lives lost a worthwhile sacrifice so that we could reach the circumstances we are in now, with the Obamination as President?
Hitler made his two biggest mistakes in 1941 IMHO.
1) Decision to invade the USSR, a country too big to swallow especially when you consider that the Germans were fighting on other fronts.
2) Decision to declare war on the US just days after Pearl Harbor in December 1941. What exactly was Hitler thinking taking on a vast industrial power such as the US protected by two huge oceans? Did Hitler think his U-Boats were going to penetrate the Great Lakes? Did he think the Luftwaffe was going to strike American cities? Did he think his panzer divisions were going to roll over the fruited plain? What EXACTLY was Hitler thinking went he entered the Reichstag just days following Pearl Harbor to declare war on the US? At a time when thousands and thousands of his troops were literally freezing to death deep in the USSR.
Yet on the "repeal the 17th amendment" threads, the same crowd argued this occurred when the 17th amendment was passed in 1913. Your arguments might be more convincing if you could pick one date when "our Republic died" and stick with it, instead of setting it decades apart depending on your talking point on that given day.
Republic does not equal freedom or liberty. It just means there are no Kings, Queens or Emperors.
See the Roman Republic (before Caesar) vs. Imperial Rome, (after Caesar).
Hitler visited Napoleon’s tomb before invading the USSR... he was arrogant.
Hitler was stupid NOT to provide the German armies with the winter uniforms, etc.
Hitler foolishly thought that the Japanese would reciprocate by declaring war on Russia and opening a Siberian front — foolish considering the spanking that Zhukov had given the Japanese during their ground war against Russia years earlier.
Hitler was fooled by Canaris, who sabotaged negotiations with Spain, which could have led to the Germans overrunning Gibraltar.
If Hitler was a “genius”, his megalomania, paranoia, and overconfidence effectively negated any genius.
While FM Rommel was the most celebrated German general with knack for media relations, daring-do, and press attention, FM Erich von Manstein was the most brilliant mind of WWII IMHO. Kesselring, Guderian, Model, were also extremely talented.
The idea of Lincoln buying the slaves instead of going on with the Civil War comes from the book “The Peculiar Institution” by Kenneth M. Stamp. Mr. Stamp also gives us the economic costs in dollars and shows us that that it would have been financially less expensive. Some slaves were able to buy their freedom. Lincoln was part of an organization that was sending freed slaves to Liberia which was a U.S. colony at the time.
Most likely the south would have ended up looking like any of the other former slave economies around the Caribbean. A big version of Jamaica or Cuba.
One frequently finds people on these threads arguing that the south would eventually have rejoined the union. I wonder if the United States would have readmitted them.
And what reason would the southern slave owners have had to sell? What would they replace the slaves with?
Sure buying the slaves, if feasible, would have been cheaper than the war. You can say that about any war. But the wars come.
Where do you get 25,000?
No, but I don't claim they died from a bullet wound in 1929 one day, and then the following day, make the claim that they died from an entirely different bullet wound that happened in 1934.
Your argument might have merit if the 17th amendment was passed in 1865.
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.