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

Skip to comments.

Could the South Have Won?
NY Books ^ | June 2002 ed. | James M. McPherson

Posted on 05/23/2002 8:52:25 AM PDT by stainlessbanner

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,061-1,062 next last
To: Poohbah
Fine. The Navy shows up, resupplies Fort Sumter, and Fort Sumter does...what, exactly

Continues to collect tariffs that they feel is due them which is what started the war in the first place

21 posted on 05/23/2002 11:05:19 AM PDT by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Like the Japanese, the slave holders convinced themselves that the United States could not or would not fight.

It's hard to say which was laid lower, Ipmerial Japan, or the So-called CSA.

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

Oddly, if you think about it, United States forces had an almost unbroken series of successes, especially in the west. Several attempts by the CSA to invade the north were successfully repulsed, and Union efforts in the "west" received only one serious check, at Chickamaugua. Other than that, U.S. forces advanced constantly from Forts Donelson and Henry, through Shiloh, Vicksburg, Stones River, Atlanta and on to Charleston.

The reason the so-called CSA failed in its rebellion against the lawful government was that southern will, and its armies, melted away.

Walt

22 posted on 05/23/2002 11:14:02 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
What started the war, billbears, was Davis firing on Sumter. That turned the confederate action from hot air to armed rebellion.
23 posted on 05/23/2002 11:15:31 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: varina davis
And incorrect.
24 posted on 05/23/2002 11:16:15 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: Non-Sequitur
And incorrect.

It shouldn't be forgotten that besides the maladroit firing on Sumter, Davis also ordered an invasion of Kentucky that backfired badly also.

Oh, and so much for respect for Kentucky state's rights, by Davis.

President Lincoln never did anything as far outside the pale as that.

President Lincoln said he would see United States law operate in all the states, which he did. Davis professed to respect states' rights, which he did not.

Walt

26 posted on 05/23/2002 11:22:23 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
President Lincoln never did anything as far outside the pale as that.

Oh no? How about the unconstitutional annexation of Western Virginia?

27 posted on 05/23/2002 11:30:03 AM PDT by varina davis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CajunPrince
Knock yourself out. What you showed was the intention of Lincoln to resupply and reinforce the garrison at Sumter. I've never denied his intention to do so. But Davis chose to respond to those actions by starting the war. Why Davis chose such an insane course of action, against the advice of his own secretary of state, is open to debate. I pointed out that he needed a war to bring the other slave-holding states into the confederacy. He needed a war to silence the internal criticism that was growing louder in the south. He had no mandate, no idea of his popular support. He was appointed, not elected, and had no real idea of how popular his cause of war was. So part of his actions were no doubt to appease his critics. But for the most part he just wanted the other slave states to join. Why did Lincoln want to retain Sumter? Partly because he said he would do so on several occasions, including his inaugural address. But in large part because that by giving into southern demands not to reinforce Sumter or, worse, ceding Sumter to the Davis regime, he would be giving them de facto recognition as a sovereign nation. And that is something he would never do. So in the end you have two different men with two different agendas that met at Charleston harbor. Lincoln could have achieved his agenda peacefully, but Davis couldn't achieve his without a war. And so the war came.
28 posted on 05/23/2002 11:33:15 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: varina davis
Not unconstitutional at all.
29 posted on 05/23/2002 11:37:20 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
South may well have won - even a sustained stalemate would have constituted a victory - had it managed to break the blockade

Ok, but that's like saying if the Germans could cross the English Channel in July 1940 they would have defeated Britain.
Both are true but neither the South nor Germany had the Navy that was needed.

30 posted on 05/23/2002 11:37:58 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: varina davis
President Lincoln never did anything as far outside the pale as that.

Oh no? How about the unconstitutional annexation of Western Virginia?

Tsk, tsk.

The president is not involved in the creation of new states.

Consider:

"The consent of the legislatiure of Virginia is constitutionally neccesary to the bill for the admission of West-Virginia becoming a law. A body claiming to be such a legislature has given it's consent. We can not deny that it is such, unless we do so on the outside knowledge that the body was chosen at elections, in which a majority of the qualified voters of Virginia did not participate. But it is a universal practice in the popular elections of all the states, to give no legal consideration whatever to those who do not choose to vote, as against the effect of those, who do choose to vote. Hence, it is not the qualifed voters, but the qualified voters--who --choose--to--vote, that constitute the political power of the state."

A. Lincoln

Surprise, surprise, disloyal Virginians.

Walt

31 posted on 05/23/2002 11:39:29 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Charlotte Corday
the gunfire on Sumter, 12 April 61, as the precipitate "casus belli"

That was the incident that began the fighting. The Confederacy could have won early if they had advanced into DC following their initial victory. They could have sued for peace if they had prevailed at Gettysburg, which they could possibly have done several times during the engagement, but that was nearly their last chance. The longer the war went on, the dimmer their chances became.

32 posted on 05/23/2002 11:42:09 AM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: steppenwolf
Bump
34 posted on 05/23/2002 11:42:41 AM PDT by Nutjob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
The Confederacy could have won early if they had advanced into DC following their initial victory. They could have sued for peace if they had prevailed at Gettysburg, which they could possibly have done several times during the engagement, but that was nearly their last chance. The longer the war went on, the dimmer their chances became.

However, it's fair to note that these would constitute "victory" in a diplomatic sense only, and that the underlying cause of the war -- which was expansion of slavery into the new territories -- would still exist. The sectional rivalries would also have been considerably sharpened by the fact of the North having "lost" the war.

Eventually the Civil War would have started afresh, and probably ended with the same utter defeat of the South as actually occurred.

35 posted on 05/23/2002 11:47:06 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: billbears
That's as may be, but I very much doubt that the north would have had the stomach for a fight in which the other side hadn't fired the first shot.
36 posted on 05/23/2002 11:49:53 AM PDT by Charlotte Corday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Right. What might have happened if the war had never been fought or had been stopped by treaty in the early stage. Would things be much different now? The 100 years between 1865 and 1965 would have been different of course, but after a while would it all have mattered.
37 posted on 05/23/2002 11:54:06 AM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
The Confederacy, in other words, was compelled to surrender not because its soldiers fought badly, or lacked courage, or suffered from poor leadership, or because its cause was wrong, but simply because the enemy had more men and guns.

The Confederacy lost because Lincoln and Union troops waged an uncivil war against civilians and civilian property. Unable to win honorably on the field of battle, Union troops resorted attacking civilians and their property. Only after 4 years against overwhelming odds, we were starved into submission.

38 posted on 05/23/2002 11:57:04 AM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CajunPrince
BUMP!
39 posted on 05/23/2002 11:59:13 AM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: CajunPrince
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.

LOL! If credibility is based on a short quote from a biased newspaper, then you've got it in spades. Here in the real world, however.....

I note in passing that the first shot of the war was fired by Edmund Ruffin. Ruffin's desire to push the secessionist movement towards a confrontation with the North brought him to Charleston during the Sumter crisis. He intended to take his stand with the Confederacy, and he hoped events would drive his native state, Virginia , out of the Union. His ardent southern nationalism made him a hero of southern radicals. He was invited to attend three secession conventions, and given the honor of firing one of the first batteries against Fort Sumter.

A rather telling little passage, which demonstrates that at least some of the influential southerners were not so peaceful and reasonable as the ones who inhabit the imaginations of the pro-Confederates hereabout.

As the war drew to a close, Ruffin committed suicide His last words were: "I here declare my unmitigated hatred to Yankee rule -- to all political, social and business connection with the Yankees and to the Yankee race. Would that I could impress these sentiments, in their full force, on every living Southerner and bequeath them to every one yet to be born! May such sentiments be held universally in the outraged and down-trodden South, though in silence and stillness, until the now far-distant day shall arrive for just retribution for Yankee usurpation, oppression and atrocious outrages, and for deliverance and vengeance for the now ruined, subjugated and enslaved Southern States!

...And now with my latest writing and utterance, and with what will be near my latest breath, I here repeat and would willingly proclaim my unmitigated hatred to yankee rule--to all political, social and business connections with Yankees, and the perfidious, malignant and vile Yankee race."

40 posted on 05/23/2002 11:59:39 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,061-1,062 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