Posted on 10/15/2005 8:38:50 AM PDT by teldon30
SOON AFTER THE end of the Civil War, as the Confederates streamed home after four bitter years of fighting, a Virginia soldier was heard to say, "They never whipped us, Sir, unless they were four to one. If we had anything like a fair chance, or less disparity of numbers, we should have won our Cause and established our independence."
That defiance, along with the question of why they "whipped us," have continued to this day. Two points stand out: The first is that the war lasted as long as it did, and the second is that the South lost.
That long-ago Virginia veteran expressed the feelings of the entire South: With as many assets as the Confederacy possessed, how could the South possibly have lost?
Its advantages were enormous, starting with a gigantic and contiguous land mass that stretched east to west from the Atlantic to the far reaches of Texas; and south to north from the Gulf of Mexico up to the Ohio River. It was all Confederate, the whole 750,000 square miles of it, a land brimming with natural resources.
The South controlled mile after mile of seacoast, perfect as a source of food; as well as dozens of harbors and coves and inlets and bays and riverbanks, ideal for smuggling and evading the Union blockade they knew was coming. The South also had a dedicated and devoted population that believed passionately in the righteousness of their Cause.
They knew they were facing huge odds--but they looked to their own ancestors, their own fathers and grandfathers, who had fought the British, the mightiest power in the world at the time, and had won their freedom. Why not a second time against a similar oppressor? They even thought they could fight the same war--they could fight defensively, as had the Colonists, knowing that the Union, as the British, would have to invade and occupy, and then destroy their will to resist in order to claim victory.
It didn't work out that way--and over the next several columns, we are going to talk about the reasons the South lost the Civil War. Of course, there is a corollary: If we try to find out why the South lost, we can also learn why the North won.
Truth be told, experts seldom agree on a single reason; they generally list about six overall concepts.
1. The fundamental economic superiority of the North.
2. A basic lack of strategy in the way the South fought the war.
3. The inept Southern performance in foreign affairs.
4. The South did not have a dominating civilian leader.
5. The Confederate Constitution put too much emphasis on individual and states rights and did not stress the responsibilities of the individual or the state to the federal government.
6. Abraham Lincoln.
I'll discuss each of these reasons in upcoming columns, but I am interested in what you think. If you have thoughts about why the South did not win its independence, please mail or e-mail your own reasons about why the South lost--or the North won. I'll print as many opinions as I can.
Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Gen. Robert E. Lee should have known how to fight a winning war of independence. Both were West Point graduates, and had studied how Gen. George Washington had won the Revolutionary War simply by not losing it. It was the best example of the strategy a weaker enemy is forced to use when he fights a larger, better-armed enemy with incomparably better resources, better finances and an ability to prolong a war indefinitely.
Gen. Washington's Rule No. 1: Husband your resources and avoid losing the war.
No. 2: Avoid head-to-head battles that use up your manpower, your most precious asset.
No. 3. Prolong the war.
No. 4. Hope that the enemy would grow heartily sick of the casualties in a war that never seems to end.
There were some other Gen. Washington rules:
No. 5. The Revolution would continue as long as he had the Continental Army, which was the only real power he had.
No. 6. Thus, do not risk the army except in the most dire emergency or when the odds are heavily in your favor.
No. 7. Do not risk the army to defend territory because it is the army that the British have to subdue, not geography.
No. 8. Remember that most of the fighting will be in your territory in geography you know best. Frustrate the British by raids, continual skirmishing, and capturing their supplies, always staying just beyond their ability to defeat you.
These were the rules for victory, and yet neither Davis nor Gen. Lee adopted this "fight-the-war-not-to-win-it-but-to-avoid-losing-it" strategy, even though they knew it was a tried and true road to independence.
Why? Their own ancestors had shown that it worked. In modern times, we have seen it work, too: In World War II, the Russians traded space for time until they could build up their own war-making capability and then go on the offensive.
In the Vietnam War, Ho Chi Minh used it all too well. That war lasted from 1954 to 1975. Ho understood that in order to win a war against more powerful enemies (France, the United States), you have to follow certain rules to lead more powerful enemies into giving up the struggle.
The Vietnam War was a conflict that for us seemed to have no end. Ho's delaying tactics eventually worked: America got sick of a never-ending war that appeared to produce nothing but casualties, and so we made peace with an enemy that had but a fraction of our power. We were the more powerful combatant, yet we gave up the struggle.
The Confederacy never even tried to follow Washington's precepts. Part of the reason is the nature of Southern men. It went counter to the Southern psyche, which was the "attack" strategy for winning any battle. The Confederacy's high command followed their West Point training of "charge" to defeat their enemy. They were convinced that "aggressive attack" was the best and really the only way to win a war.
Could the Washington precepts have worked in the Civil War? We will never know how it would have worked out, but it could not have turned out any worse for the Southern Cause.
I agree. In the churchs in most northern states it was regularly being preached that slavery was morally and biblically wrong and couldnt fit in with a republican government, where as in the south not so. They were being taught that the North was encroaching on there rights and that tarrifs and such were evidence of it, when you boil it down to its core, its morality versus a governmental ideology, morality wil almost always win out.
Slavery indeed was not the sole cause of the Civil War but it was an implied side cause that the North had been wanting to end and it provided a clear cause in the end for the North to hone in on.
emphasis mine.
1-4 have been adopted by Al Quida.
Personally...I don't think God had anything to do with it.
I wonder if the military significance of Gettysburg has been overrated.
The defeat at Gettysburg did not cripple the Army of Northern Virginia as an effective force; nor would a victory have brought the Confederacy any closer to victory, since the Army of the Potomac would have kept pursuing it throughout Pennsylvania and Maryland while the Southerners were forced to forage in increasingly hostile territory as they got further away from their supply lines.
The loss of Vicksburg at the same time to the South was much more damaging to the cause because it gave the North effective control of the Mississippi River and cut the eastern and western halves of the Confederacy off from each other.
Perhaps Gettysburg's significance is more psychological, in retrospect, than military.
Ok, maybe you could answer the question over at
Who was the last conservative white southern protestant appointed to SCOTUS ?
1) The North kicked its ass.
condolences are in order, then. Keep the Hill Country in mind for the day you can make the move. At least come for a visit.April and May are perfect...JUne is, too...ah,, well,come anytime.
So....you think "God" just had issues with Southern slavery? LOL Apparently...he was fine with the North's policy of haulin' and sellin' and he even went so far as to order the Israelites to take slaves.
Personally...I don't think God had anything to do with it.
_____________________
Truth bump....
Well, maybe the HOPE of entangling the USA kept the war going for a while before we did jump in, after the Germans torpedoed a military vessel carrying munitions, plus those Americans foolish enough to ignore good-faith efforts by the Germans to warn them against taking passage on the Lusitania. (although, given your screen name, I understand your love for precision!)
"It is a reasonable question actually: who was the last white conservative southern protestant appointed to SCOTUS?"
In the last 50 years, only four SCOTUS justices were Southerners: Abe Fortas, Lewis Powell, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Clarence Thomas.
Here is a link to an excellent website that has brief biographies on every SCOTUS justice. It's well worth comparing them, pre-nomination, to Ms. Miers. No two lives are ever lived exactly the same, but Ms. Miers' resume is very comparable to many SCOTUS justices at the time they were nominated.
For example, of the 17 Chief Justices to date, only five had served as a judge prior to their nomination to the court.
Our first Chief Justice, John Jay, was George Washington's "crony." In those days, no one rose in life without being someone else's "crony."
Our fifth Chief Justice, Roger Brooke Taney, was Andrew Jackson's "crony." Jackson used a recess appointment to make Taney Secretary of the Treasury. When the recess appointment expired, Jackson formally submitted Taney's nomination for Sec. Treasury, and the senate voted him down. Jackson nominated Taney as an associate justice of the SCOTUS, and again the senate declined to confirm him. Finally, Jackson nominated Taney to be Chief Justice and the senate confirmed him.
Our eighth Chief Justice, Melville Weston Fuller, had a resume not too dissimilar from that of Harriet Miers before he was nominated by Grover Cleveland in 1888.
There have been 109 individuals who have served (or are serving) on the SCOTUS. They came from a wide range of backgrounds and life experiences. Only a minority of them went to an elite law school. Forty-three never served as a judge in any capacity prior to their nominations.
Great post teldon30. This is a bookmark for sure.
I think the reasoning behind this is akin to Farrakhan saying whites blew up the levees in New Orleans intentionally with bombs to kill black people.
Just like Farrakhan's theory, your theory involves inventing hallucinatory discrimination claims, and maligning dozens of sincere people. Imagine what society would be like if we all went around acting like Farrakhan, impugning the motives of others in this way.
Conservatives are guaranteed to be alarmed at any stealth "trust me" candidate with no documented history of advocating a conservative judicial philosophy. Simple isn't it.
I'll turn your theory around in an attempt to open your eyes. What would you think if someone said Bush nominated Mier's because Laura Bush told her to? Since Laura and her are both female evangelical SMU grads. Ugly theory isn't it? Hallucinating discrimination, and maligning the motives of others, is not a pretty thing.
Amen
more flawed Puritan logic on display
You tell em' trek! *~*
The notion that slavery was a permissable source of self-righteous indignation that justified terrorism and slaughter on an industrial scale can be laid at the feet of the Unitarians. The British empire abolished slavery over the course of 20 years, providing funds to aid in the transition. Today, a disproportionate percentage of black professionals in the real disciplines (excluding govt. work and including medicine and engineering) are of "west indian" origin. In the States, it took the death of 600,000 Americans to achieve that goal, and several decades of military occupation to make it stick.
It was unitarian money that bankrolled domestic terrorist John Brown's slaughter of innocent folks who offered him hospitality (See Otto Scott's meticulously documented book The Secret Six). It was unitarian propaganda that framed human sacrifice as a legitimate substitute for the atonement of Christ. The "Battle Hymn of the Republic" views the union armies as a new incarnation.
We're still suffering the effects of the New England apostasy, that saw church after church take the cross off the steeple and replace it with the weathervane.
We always said the South would rise again........*~*.
So, in your opinion, Abe would take China to war.
No. 3. Prolong the war.
This guy nothing of which he writes. The only way the South was going to win the war meant not doing these two things. Porblem was, the South was unwilling in press any of their early advantages. After Manassas, they should have marched straight into the North and captured a major city. Baltimore was probably closest. Then immediately press that advantage by heading to Philadephia or even further to NYC.
If they had pressed their early advantages they could have conquered much of the North and forced peace.
Problem for them, they were not interested in conquering the North, just keeping what they had. Thus their failure to press their early advatages and in doing so, their failure to bring the war to their enemy. One of Sun Tzu' most basic of all basic tenants he makes. Take the fight to the enemy, do not let him bring it to you.
They didn't have to fight an insurgency war, thus avoid the lessons of Washington and look to more classical warfare advice.
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.