Could the South Have Won?

NY Books ^ | June 2002 ed. | James M. McPherson

[WhiskeyPapa]

Horsehockey Walt....one cannot compare a war with an enemy having to send an expeditionary force across the Atlantic with a nation at war with a huge and more powerful neighbor at their doorstep. Not to mention that fortunately Britian was preoccupied on other fronts quite unlike the Union.

Colonial resources were miniscule compared to the material stolen from U.S. arsenals by the so-called CSA.

The so-called CSA also expected to start with a fat war chest with monies from northern PRIVATE creditors, which so-called CSA legislation directed be paid to the so-called CSA treasury instead of the lawful creditors.

It -was- widely thought in Europe that the insurection in the so-called seceded states could not be overcome.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

I disagree. For the most part I would say that the south was poorly served by the army and corps commanders she had. Lee is everyone's ideal of an Army commander, but Lee still lost to lesser commanders like McClellan and Meade. Grant, on the other hand, beat every confederate general he came up against. After those two, I have to say that George Thomas, William Sherman, and George Meade were better than Braxton Bragg, Joseph Johnston, and P.G.T. Beauregard. Stonewall Jackson was without peer as a corps commander and my particular choice for the best general of the war, on both sides. But he stood alone. Longstreet and Early and Ewell and Polk and Hood were all average and not as good as generals like Hancock, Sedgewick, Logan, and Sheridan. Forrest was in a class by himself, but he would be more of a division commander since he never commanded troops at the corps or army level. And while the south had many competent division commanders, the North was even more blessed in that regard. If I had to rate the generals, I would put Jackson first; then Grant, Lee, and Thomas or Sherman. It's intersting to note that the one Union general who both Grant and Sherman thought was the best commander of the war was someone most people have never heard of, MGEN James Birdseye McPherson, killed at Atlanta in 1864.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Why do you insist on posting that LIE about the tariff?

The war was unwinnable by the South after May 10,1863. Lee's military decisions also pretty much guaranteed eventual defeat. Rather than adopt Jackson's strategy which would have raised hell in the North he and Davis preferred to remain on the defensive and fight headlong battles against a more powerful enemy. Jackson never fought a headon battle if he could flank the enemy or attack from the rear. He understood that to win you had to force the enemy to attack you. Defensive positions brought such incredible firepower to bear that attackers rarely won.

Lincoln was so far superior a man to his opponents in every way that his strength of character held the Union together until military genius arose in the form of Sherman and Grant which could counter Jackson, Stuart, Forrest and Lee. Most of the other generals on both sides were pretty incompetent.

[wardaddy]

And while we're at it, My Hero...who I'm sure coulda whipped yer hero's arse..man a mano:

Look at their eyes...one man killed nearly 3 dozen men hand to hand...the other gave orders. Crazy eyes versus meanass determined eyes. Take yer pick!

Sherm, you damn worm!! are you back on FR stirring up trouble again?...I'm calling you out suh!!!

[r9etb]

Look at their eyes...one man killed nearly 3 dozen men hand to hand...the other gave orders. Crazy eyes versus meanass determined eyes. Take yer pick!

If I want to win a battle, Forrest is the guy. If I'm trying to win a war, I'll pick Sherman any time.

[Non-Sequitur]

I think you're mixing your generals. Lincoln didn't fire Meade. Meade continued in command of the Army of the Potomac until the end of the war. He was just overshadowed by having Grant with him. As for William Scott Hancock, I think you are thinking of Winfield Hancock and Winfield Scott. Winfield Scott was the elderly commander in chief of the U.S. Army at the outbreak of the war. Winfield Scott Hacock was in his thirties and commanded the Second Corps from prior to Gettysburg until Appomattox.

[wardaddy]

If it was so widely held that the CSA would prevail Walt, why did none of the European powers formally recognize them? No, as usual the truth is the mirror opposite of your opining. The South endured for nearly 5 years against a far more powerful invader because of their spirit and more able military leadership on the whole. Yankees and Southern traitors like you owe your victory to Grant and Sherman...and yes Lincoln...not to a Southern lack of fighting resolve as you falsely pontificate.

[wardaddy]

I'm glad you're back. That was damn witty but it's relevance escapes me.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I disagree. With the incompetent leadership and idiotic political philosophy the South was sure to lose particularly when up against one of the greatest men the earth ever produced.

[varina davis]

We have no doubt Mr. Lincoln wants the Cabinet at Montgomery to take the initiative by capturing the two forts in its waters, for it would give him the opportunity of throwing upon the Southern Confederacy the responsibility of commencing hostilities. But the country and posterity will hold him just as responsible as if he struck the first blow. -- New York Herald, 6 March 1861 It's not even in doubt in a yankee newspaper as to who started the war. Don't go to such great lengths to prove a point you can't make. It makes you look less credible that you already are.

TOUCHE'!

[weikel]

Opps Winfield Scott sorry I got the names wrong LOL.

[weikel]

Its good that you can be civilized and rational even on "hot topics" like the civil thats why me( and mackattack for instance) always liked you. When someone resorts to illogical ad hominems it poisons everything LOL.

[wardaddy]

I think that is a call difficult to make. Forrest never commanded anything beyond cavalry (or dragoons really) until the very final days of the war when I think he defacto ended up with some footpounders. Hence, he was never tested nor defeated as a unit until he surrendered near Selma in 1865. Davis being a snotty plantocrat never thought Forrest had the proper bloodlines or education I suppose. I'm sure Grant and Sherman were grateful for that oversight. I am quite willing to acknowledge Sherman's proclivity for victory and punishment and while I do not like it....I certainly understand it. We are living in an era where both Sherman and Forrest would come in mighty handy in my view. Sherman directing attrition against our foes and Forrest in the Khost area pursuing raghead terrs. Sounds comforting to me.

[weikel]

Exactly Sherman was the master of strategy Forrest was the master of tactics. Sherman would deploy his army group( thats what "The Grand Army of the West" was) in such a way that it would be irrelevant if the portion of it tying down the Confederates in battle won or not. That being said Forrest the master of tactics was the only man Sherman feared.

[warchild9]

The big question is: will we win this round? As long as the Yankees are frozen to their sports on television, there's a more than even chance!

[stand watie]

i LIKE your graphic!