Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why the South lost the Civil War
http://fredericksburg.com/ ^ | 10/15/2005 | NED HARRISON

Posted on 10/15/2005 8:38:50 AM PDT by teldon30

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-255 next last
To: trek
I would be more than satisfied with an end to the demonization of southern culture.

I agree. I love the South. However the Albatross of the image of slavery, Jim Crow and the 60's Civil Rights Movement has been hung around the Southern white mans neck. It's just as pernicious as is the white Southern angst over the "War of Northern Aggression" that is shown on this thread. What's done is done. The restoration of Southern, antebellum culture (sans the slavery), is as likely as are reparations to blacks for that slavery. In other words, the answer to the question of when will the "South rise again" is a: "You can't get there from here". Blacks have to remove their hairshirt of historical slavery and whites remove the gray tunic of the Confederacy for both to progress. Neither is likely.

It's like Israel and the Palestinians.

201 posted on 10/15/2005 1:25:20 PM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
"The people who live in the "Old Union"--the one that won the Civil War--think they are the natural rulers of the country/"

I've been doing homework on this tidbit. I'm finding it to be a very very interesting topic, especially the religious affiliation of the major players. The patterns that surface are fascinating

What have you found so far?????? Please.

202 posted on 10/15/2005 1:27:17 PM PDT by Yellow Rose of Texas (WAR: 1/3 yes, 1/3 no, 1/3 undecided; So began the American Revolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Adrastus
All I can say in my defense is "Coopers" in Llano.

Been there, love it!

203 posted on 10/15/2005 1:33:01 PM PDT by Yellow Rose of Texas (WAR: 1/3 yes, 1/3 no, 1/3 undecided; So began the American Revolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Morgan's Raider

Think of how would it have ended if the South had an industrial base and/or was able to eliminate the Union blockade of Southern ports.


204 posted on 10/15/2005 1:34:53 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: teldon30
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.

That's at least a little doubtful. Southerners didn't have any trouble fighting a guerrilla war in the 1780s during the later phases of the revolution. It was more West Point, Napoleon's reputation, and 19th century Romanticism that dictated the tactics that Civil War commanders used than anything especially Southern.

205 posted on 10/15/2005 1:41:31 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trek
So? Emphasis or not, Lincolns words above do not support your theory that "Slavery was not the cause of the war." It merely says that, to Lincoln, preserving the union was paramount. He does not address the cause.

And I see you are unable to answer my other question on what 'states rights' were being violated.

trek wrote: Most import were industrial goods. At the time northern manufacturers were at a significant competitive disadvantage to British and other European manufacturers. They used the power of the Federal Government to levy onerous tarrifs on these imports.

Hmm, -- to you, "onerous tariffs" made war necessary. Weird idea.

This profited merchants and manufacturers in the north at the expense of largely poor farmers in the south (most of whom owned no slaves).

If tariffs were that bad, a black market in smuggled goods would have solved the problem. -- Nope, your idea that civil war came because of onerous taxes just does not wash.

Try again.

206 posted on 10/15/2005 1:42:12 PM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Yellow Rose of Texas

Bottom line is the universities and their religious affliations at their founding, and how those changed over time. Harvard I believe was the first to abandon trinitarian principles for Universalist ones.

When you enter into the problem from that direction, the biggest patterns emerge. The ones most hostile to the South were Unitarian types.


207 posted on 10/15/2005 1:43:45 PM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: teldon30
....I'm very southern by the way.

Nah, you're not.

Southern is, statements are not. A Southerner (notice the caps) need not claim he is a Southerner, nor does a virtuous woman have need to state that she is a lady. What is, is, and needs not explanation.

208 posted on 10/15/2005 1:52:58 PM PDT by SandwicheGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You do know that without the Cal and Australian Gold Rush's that there would not have been enough gold in the world to allow our trading partners to be on the same standard as us. It's considered fact by many historians (just google it if you need to) that Lincoln would not have been able to finance the Union side at least at that time, except for the extra buying power going into the treasury from the West and that the actual timing of the commencement of the Civil War was pushed up due to this factor.


209 posted on 10/15/2005 1:58:04 PM PDT by tertiary01 (For every Act of God, the Libs will demand a human sacrifice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: SandwicheGuy

ha...whatever you say...i guess being born and raised in the southern most part of the heart of dixie is not enough.


210 posted on 10/15/2005 2:03:42 PM PDT by teldon30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: trek
My view is that the Southrens have the Yankees right where they want 'em. Why even the Northerners are fed up with the extra-constitutional overreaching from Washington. This will go down as the greatest rope-a-dope of all time. Look for the occupation of Dixie to end any day now.

Here in North Carolina, it couldn't come a day too soon!!

211 posted on 10/15/2005 2:10:23 PM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

English aristocrats were, of course, on the side of the Confederacy. Less a matter of class solidarity as a desire to see the USA broken up. A continuing Union was a threat to Britiain entire position in the Western Hemisphere.


212 posted on 10/15/2005 2:13:47 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: teldon30
ha...whatever you say...i guess being born and raised in the southern most part of the heart of dixie is not enough.

That's right. Southern is a state of mind, not geography... (Said with an avuncular smile...)

213 posted on 10/15/2005 2:14:07 PM PDT by SandwicheGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

The hard money laid a foundation for the expansion that took place during the war. Not enough to sustain a long expansion , however. The competing silver interest was there until the next gold strikes in Alaska and South Africa.


214 posted on 10/15/2005 2:18:52 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: elbucko

Agree completely with your remarks. But a greater understanding of our history might help some understand better the problems we face today. The idea of limited government is lost in the current debate. Our ancestors fought a war over it. A better understanding of history in general and the War between the States in particular might help some see better where we are, how we got here and why we might want to be in a place more attuned to the ideals of the founders.


215 posted on 10/15/2005 2:20:21 PM PDT by trek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: teldon30
..."The War of Northern Aggression"
216 posted on 10/15/2005 2:26:22 PM PDT by ExtremeUnction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
Great question. What are the names off hand of who you would suggest?

Well, to name just a few:

Priscilla Owen (Texas)
Edith Jones (Texas)
J. Michael Luttig (Texas)
William Pryor (Alabama)
Michael McConnell (Kentucky)

217 posted on 10/15/2005 2:27:41 PM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: neocon1984
Reagan indeed used a similar strategy in the 1980's, as did Admiral Nimitz in the Pacific during WW2.

He knew that it would take almost a year to build up his forces enough to challenge the Japanese in a full fleet offensive, so he adopted a hit-and-run strategy with Admiral Halsey that was absolutely brilliant. These slashing attacks with small carrier task forces kept the Japanese off balance and forced them to commit a number of stupid blunders. The only time we attempted to stop them with a show of force was the ABDA (Australian-British-Dutch-American) fleet action in the Java Sea that resulted in a crushing defeat for the Allies.

By the time the Battles of the Coral Sea and Midway came around, the United States was in the midst of a massive rearmament and further risks could be taken to halt the Japanese advance. Even though the United States lost the carriers Lexington and Yorktown in these battles, they still had the Enterprise, Hornet, and Saratoga, with the Wasp and Ranger as backup, and they dealt a crippling blow to the Japanese Navy by sinking five carriers and crippling a sixth in these two engagements.

218 posted on 10/15/2005 2:33:36 PM PDT by Stonewall Jackson ("Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ExtremeUnction

The South lost the war because they had fewer men left after four years of war.


219 posted on 10/15/2005 3:02:01 PM PDT by vetvetdoug (Shiloh, Corinth, Iuka, Brices Crossroads, Harrisburg, Britton Lane, Holly Springs, Hatchie Bridge,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: vetvetdoug
(The South lost the war because they had fewer men left after four years of war)

You said it. That's the only reason. lincoln knew this. He said more than once. We will win when we find a general that
can "stand the math". Even when the north lost big at Chancellorsville they could just reach back and grab another bunch of Dutchman to throw at the gristmill.
220 posted on 10/15/2005 3:27:26 PM PDT by smug (Tanstaafl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-255 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson