Could the South Have Won?

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

[GOPcapitalist]

Miller was under arms, a legitimate POW.

...but innocent of any wrongdoing. Sherman had him executed in cold blood.

On the other hand, about 50 of Sherman's men, all legal combatants, were lynched during the march.

If they were legal combatants, they were legitimate military targets. And if they were committing crimes against civilians, which they were, they were legitimate targets of civilian self defense.

I do find it amusing though that, in your twisted world, Miller's cold blooded execution somehow "doesn't count" as an atrocity, as if his being a POW gave Sherman the right to murder him.

But when a bunch of Sherman sanctioned looters and arsonists get shot down while lighting flames to innocent people's houses, that somehow in some sick and twisted way counts as an "atrocity" in your mind.

Your double standards, Walt, are laughable.

[Cleburne]

I don't think Meade was all that hot. He had his good points, but his performance in the Wilderness was less than satisfactory- although one might attribute some of his problems to the rather foolish method of "dividing" command between Grant and Meade, and the fact that no one seemed to know exactly how the whole mess worked out.

[weikel]

I don't think you guys lost because you were dumb racist hicks( and in my experience Southerners are nicer people) I'm sure most of the Northern population at that time was dumb racist hicks.

[weikel]

I'm not sure the wilderness campaign was neccasary I think Grant could have outflanked Richmond rather than facing the confederate army right on( like Sherman would have almost certainly done Sherman understood the Sun Tzu philosphy of seeking victory before seeking battle) Grant was more simpleminded then Sherman. As Grant said about his military philosphy "I find the enemy and I attack them"( I'm not sure of the exact quote).

[Cleburne]

The Confederate high command was almost always lousy, though the rank and file commanders and soldiers were of fine material. But with incompetent men like Bragg and Hood leading them, they were little more than heroic cannon fodder. Bragg missed a fine chance to hold Kentucky for the Confederacy, but he squandered it. Was he replaced? No, he went on to lose Tennessee in a long, humilating retreat that could have quite easily been halted (Middle Tennessee is littered with ranges of limestone hills and crossed by deep-bedded rivers, fine defensive ground), then, coming into Georgia, squandered a victory at Chickamauga, argued with Longstreet and squandered his forces, and, to top it off, pulled off a miserable "seige" of Chattanooga. His army would likely have been destroyed had it not been for Pat Cleburne's stand in the gap south outside of Ringgold.

[GOPcapitalist]

Funny you neoconfederates nevber mentioned Andersonville

Actually, the andersonville food shortages were a result largely of shortages in food and supplies by the southern armies in general.

On the other side, yankees rarely if ever have much to say about their prison camp at Point Lookout in Maryland. Conditions as bad as if not worse than Andersonville were experienced by many there, and that while the yankees had plenty of supplies to feed them had they wanted to.

[Cleburne]

I don't know. Grant certainly made plenty of mistakes, but in Grant's case, mistakes didn't matter much. He possessed one key trait that few Union generals had: tenacity. He realized that he had an almost unendless supply of men and material, and as long as he could maintain the perception in the North that victory was at hand he could maintain the supplies needed to carry out the war. He realized that for the South, men were a precious commodity, as their male population was steadily dwindling. Grant could afford to lose ten thousand men; Lee could not. Although it would be unfair to label Grant a stupid blunderbuss who "banged his head against a brick wall" accumulating totally needless casualties- he did do this in some cases, but overall he was a fairly competent commander, though it might be said he wasn't stringent in his morals or respect for anyone's life. But, in the words of N.B. Forrest (I think!) "War means killin'", and Grant was an expert in it.

[weikel]

Can you give me a link I've never heard about that.

[Cleburne]

Lookout was a particularly nasty place, as one gathers from reading descriptions written by prisoners held there. The North had no good reason for implementing the harsh conditions there. For example, with the onset of winter, all "unecessary" clothing and blankets were confisacted, leaving the prisoners with only the barest coverings. Subsequently it was not unusual for three or four men to freezze to death every night in the winter. Food was minimal at best in the camp, and rats and other vermin were greedily hawked by starving inmates. The dead, which accumulated like so much firewood (which was also extremely scarce and alloted in minimal quantities, and never adequate) and dumped into common graves outside the camp.

And yet the North could have easily provided the inmates with much better conditions, as they were not under occupation, no one was raiding their crops, no one was cutting off their trade, nor seizing medicines.

[lasereye]

Lee lost the war for the south, with his offensive form of defense. His two excursions north of the Mason Dixon line cost him huge numbers of troops, especially his loony charge directly into the Union artillery at Gettysburg. The south was winning the war before these two battles. In essence he fought a war of attrition when he was vastly outnumbered.

The tragedy, from the southern viewpoint, is that a couple of huge Confederate victories had already occurred at Fredricksburg and Chancellorsville which illustrated the correct strategy and tactics. Sit back in defensible positions and let the Union attack head on, or launch surprise attacks, in their own territory where they knew the terrain, all the while constantly attacking Union supply lines. In other words, use the advantages of defense.

[weikel]

Actually Hooker had a good plan to outflank the Confederates at Chancellorsville but his covering force was routed( I believe his covering force was under the incompetent Burnside).

[WhiskeyPapa]

If they were legal combatants, they were legitimate military targets.

I don't think your posts really need to be responded to any more. Surely the lurkers won't forgive your advocating murder.

You really sound as if you are trying to defend the sort of murder that the Waffen SS perpetrated on captured US troops in the 1944 Ardennes Offensive.

Walt

[stainlessbanner]

especially his loony charge directly into the Union artillery at Gettysburg

We would be using Confederate currency today had Lee listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg. Lee broke his own, and a well-proven rule of warefare: choose the ground where you fight. Stuart left him blind.

I recall that after First Manassas, Southrons could have marched on Washington with little resistance. I think the armies were still feeling each other out; you know what they say about hindsight. Of course Mclellan had many more opportunities to capture the ANV, but never pulled the trigger.

[Cleburne]

Burnside was a horrible general! Perhaps one of the worst of the war. He botched Spotsylvania so badly it's rather hard to believe. Why he was not removed I cannot know- probably political connections.

[Cleburne]

Confederate forces were exhasted after Manassas and disorganized. It is unlikely they could have capitalized the situation, as their victory was mostly luck and a bit of home-ground advantage. Had they marched on Washington, the whole affair would likely have degenerated into mass looting and burning until a Union force could be hastened down to drive the Rebels out- there simply wasn't good enough discipline in the Confederate ranks.

[stainlessbanner]

A couple of other folks (incl. myself) were surprised by McPherson's reviews - however, there are some small jabs thru the review if you re-read it. Your point that McPherson is only serving his Yankee view is well-taken.

BTW: I check my local used-book stores for many titles - a great source of low-priced reads for your library.

[stainlessbanner]

More Good Books

Clyde Wilson's article "The South and Southern History" - includes Southern book titles of all sorts.

[stainlessbanner]

Yes, I agree - had there been organization among Southrons, the opportunity was there. I'm not sure either side really predicted the bloodbath that ensued.

[rustbucket]

Forty loyal Texans were hanged in Gainesville, Texas during October 1862, simply for being loyal to the U.S.

With the exception of some who were hanged by a lynch mob, they were tried by a civilian court (an impromptu civilian court on the frontier) organized by Confederate army officers. The Confederate Articles of War includes the following:

”Art. 57. Whosoever shall be convicted of holding correspondence with, or giving intelligence to the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer death or such other punishment as shall be ordered by the sentence of a court-martial.”

Northern military courts applied a similar rule to anyone who gave intelligence to the enemy without the authority of the general in command. Federal military courts claimed jurisdiction over editors, newspaper correspondents, and all others publishing what they considered improper intelligence.

Why the Texas case was not tried in a military court I don't know, but it sounds like the issues involved fall under this article of war. Two years after the Texas hangings, a Confederate judge ordered that civilian courts had jurisdiction in the trial of someone accused of treasonable correspondence with the enemy and plotting to turn cotton over to them.

At Gainsville, the Confederate Army rounded up about 150 Unionists after it learned of plots to seize or destroy Confederate arsenals, support Union armies when they came, and spy for the Federals. Apparently some correspondence with the North was believed to have taken place. Some of the arrested men confessed and others were just convicted. Forty (total) were hung. The great bulk of the Unionists rounded up by the Confederate Army were either found innocent or released.

Whatever the convicted ones did was apparently considered a hanging offense (it wouldn’t take much under the Articles of War above then in effect). Court justice was and is not perfect. It could well be that innocent men were hung. But some were apparently guilty of more than just being loyal to the Union.

[Diplomat]

I always felt that the South lost because they failed to press their advantage after Manassas. If they had pushed north and captured Baltimore or some other important northern city in the earliest stages of the war, that might have forced the North to allow cessation. May have avoided the loss of more than a half million Americans too.

"The best defense is a good offense" carried the day here.