Arguing the Case for Southern Secession

Lew Rockwell ^ | 12/20/01 | Reviewed by Joseph R. Stromberg

[WhiskeyPapa]

The only reason Hood had the opportunity was Schofield's own stupidity. In fact, Cleburne's Division broke through Schofields' lines at Franklin, and the Union line was only held because a fiery little fellow name Opdyke (sp?) disregarded orders and moved in to support the flailing Union line, thus stopping Cleburne's men and effectively finishing the Army of Tennessee as a fighting force.

Reckon that's the same Opdyke who has a big monument at Chickamauga. His men were "Opdyke's Tigers", if memory serves. Must have been an interesting guy.

Walt

[justshutupandtakeit]

I am not convinced that was their purpose during the election but the larger point is that Lincoln was elected because of the split within the Democratic party. It is certainly possible that the Slaveocrats underestimated Lincoln after all they were aristocrats who looked down upon a nobody with no connections, pedigree or education as less than a slave. They used "White Trash" such as he for their menial jobs when slaves were not available. Thus, it is easy to believe them capable of not realizing the caliber of man they would be facing. This I believe properly qualifies as "stupidity."

[WhiskeyPapa]

Note that Sherman just kept going around Johnston's army on the way to Atlanta? That is what Hood should have done at Franklin - go around.

Well, I think the theory of flanking like that requires a numerical superiority that both Grant and Sherman had. You are exposing part of your force to defeat in detail when you flank. That part has got to be big enough to defend if the guy on overall defense counterattacks.

Davis was frustrated because Johnston kept falling back towards Atlanta when Sherman flanked him out of successive positions. But you have to give Sherman some credit too. Every one of his flanking maneuvers had to be done just right, or he could get a bad bloody nose.

I don't think you can say that Hood should have done that sort of thing, when the army in front of his is larger than his.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Thus, it is easy to believe them capable of not realizing the caliber of man they would be facing. This I believe properly qualifies as "stupidity."

Sure, and a type of stupidity that dragged the south down for at least a century after the war. The south may still not be on an equal footing with the rest of the country. Probably is not.

But just because I defend Lincoln and all that doesn't mean I want any more Yankees down here. ;-)

Walt

[shuckmaster]

If one reads the Declaration of the Causes of Secession for the various states it becomes clear.

You keep quoting these so-called 'declarations of the causes' like you want to fool someone (or have been fooled) into believing that these mostly unattributed wastebasket tossings skimmed from a virtual warehouse of contrasting evidence are some kind of official documents.

[exmarine]

Hi Walt.

Well, I think the theory of flanking like that requires a numerical superiority that both Grant and Sherman had.

Not necessarily. Lee did not have numerical superiority at Chancellorsville when Jackson did the left flank maneuver. It was a rout.

I don't think you can say that Hood should have done that sort of thing, when the army in front of his is larger than his.

In the Valley campaign Jackson was outnumbered by all three armies pursuing him. He whipped them all one at a time and used maneuver to surprise them. Hood could have done the same thing. If a superior army attempts to trap you, you do not have to fall into the trap if you know what you are doing. Forrest was constantly outnumbered, yet won almost every battle. Tactics are always the number one deciding factor, not numbers.

you have to give Sherman some credit too. Every one of his flanking maneuvers had to be done just right, or he could get a bad bloody nose.

I give Sherman alot of credit. It was brilliant...except for that burp at Kennesaw Mtn.

[WhiskeyPapa]

You keep quoting these so-called 'declarations of the causes' like you want to fool someone (or have been fooled) into believing that these mostly unattributed wastebasket tossings skimmed from a virtual warehouse of contrasting evidence are some kind of official documents.

Well, they were official, but they definitely belong in the garbage.

You neo-cons are pretty comical. If we say point blank: The main cause of the war was slavery, you say we are NEA drones, brainwashed by the Yankees.

If we quote the participants, you say it is unattributed.

Well, I have a question for you:

Where did you learn such a big word?

Walt

[exmarine]

It is certainly possible that the Slaveocrats underestimated Lincoln after all they were aristocrats who looked down upon a nobody with no connections,...

Everyone underestimated Lincoln. Truly one of the great wartime leaders of all time. He did it in spite of very bad advisors. It was true what I was taught in elementary school (no longer taught due to corrupt educ. system)- Washington and Lincoln truly were our greatest Presidents.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Not necessarily. Lee did not have numerical superiority at Chancellorsville when Jackson did the left flank maneuver. It was a rout.

Good point. But Lee had Jackson and a better intel picture. Generally, I don't think it is a good idea unless you've really got your ducks in a row. I don't think Hood could have done it at Franklin, though.

Walt

[exmarine]

Good point. But Lee had Jackson and a better intel picture. Generally, I don't think it is a good idea unless you've really got your ducks in a row. I don't think Hood could have done it at Franklin, though.

You are probably right, but Hood did have Forrest with him -if he had played it right, Forrest could have done the job. Nevertheless, I tend to agree - Hood was not the brightest bulb in the chandalier. IMHO, the outcome would have been different with Forrest in charge.

[exmarine]

By the way, I believe Jackson was the best General in the Civil War, and I truly believe the outcome would have been different at Gettysburg if he had been there. Old Baldy (Ewell) was no replacement for Jackson.

[WhiskeyPapa]

On the other hand, look what Rommel did to the Brits.

So flanking when outnumbered is a good tactic if your opponent is a dolt.

Walt

[exmarine]

So flanking when outnumbered is a good tactic if your opponent is a dolt.

lol. Who was that - Auckenleck? At any rate, Montgomery's victory at El Alamein is over-rated. He outnumbered Rommel 3 to 1 (at least) in armor, and Rommel was in Germany (ill) for the first part of the set-piece battle (not Rommel's forte). Montgomery was, as you say, a legend in his own mind (dolt?).

[VinnyTex]

Give it up you friggin idiot.

Your hero, war criminal Abe Lincoln in a July 4, 1848 speech said, "Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right." Lincoln biographers never seem to get around to quoting this particular speech.

Most of the top military commanders in the war (on both sides) were educated at West Point, where the one course on the U.S. Constitution was taught by the Philadelphia abolitionist William Rawle, who taught from his own book, A View of the Constitution. What Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and others were taught about secession at West Point was that to deny a state the right of secession "would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."

At the outbreak of the War for Southern Independence in 1861 the vast majority of Northern opinion leaders still believed that a right of secession was fundamental, and that the South should be allowed to go in peace. The abolitionist Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Daily Tribune and the preeminent journalist of his day, wrote on December 17, 1860 that "if tyranny and despotism justified the American Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861" (Howard Perkins, Northern Editorials on Secession). "Nine out of ten people of the North," Greeley wrote on February 5, 1861, "were opposed to forcing South Carolina to remain in the Union," for "the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration . . . is that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." Therefore, if the southern states wanted to secede, "they have a clear right to do so."

[WhiskeyPapa]

lol. Who was that - Auckenleck? At any rate, Montgomery's victory at El Alamein is over-rated. He outnumbered Rommel 3 to 1 (at least) in armor, and Rommel was in Germany (ill) for the first part of the set-piece battle (not Rommel's forte). Montgomery was, as you say, a legend in his own mind (dolt?).

Aukenleck was the overall commander; he was also responsible for all of Iran and what is now called Southwest Asia. The Brits had some on-scene guys best forgotten. General Richie was one of the onsite Brit losers.

Montgomery is WITHOUT A DOUBT the most overrated General of all time. One bio of his is grandiously called "Master of the Battlefield."

He couldn't find his tallywhacker with a ten man search party. Yes, Monty had 3:1 superiority in tanks, 2:1 in men, 10:1 in arty and 5:1 in air, or something equally dominant. And then--the Germans ran out of gas!

And this is a great victory!

Pity the Brits for having to put a jerk like this up for best general of the century. He was ineffective in Normandy. Don't start me on Holland. Monty was a butcher as bad as any World War One general.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Your hero, war criminal Abe Lincoln in a July 4, 1848 speech said, "Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right."

Yes, it is. It is a revolutionary right.

Just don't say that overthrowing the government, or secession, or whatever you want to call it is legal under US law and you'll have no beef with me.

Walt

[VinnyTex]

In 1860, it was legal. No one disputed it. ANd don't come back with your lame ass Supreme Court nosnense.

Who is John Galt kicked your ass all over this forum on that one last year.

[exmarine]

So tell me how you really feel about Montgomery. LOL. I agree with you. I believe arguably the best general in World War II on any side was Von Manstein. His victory at Sevastopol in Crimea was brilliant, and he was one of the architects of the Ardennes surprise in May 1940. He was hampered by a petty crazy dictator and too much bickering in the German general staff - this led to a defeat at Kursk.

[WhiskeyPapa]

In 1860, it was legal. No one disputed it. ANd don't come back with your lame ass Supreme Court nosnense.

Hmmmmmmmmm.......well, obviously someone opposed it.

Thank God.

Walt

[exmarine]

Horace Greeley was a blowhard. Come on now, you must admit that some evil things were happening in the South, and slavery is exceedingly evil. It should have been crushed if they would not give it up.