Could the South Have Won?

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

[Billthedrill]

But they would still have had difficulty manufacturing a viable delivery system.

What, you've never heard of the dreaded Mule Bomb? I'm told Osama and the boys are working on it themselves...

[r9etb]

Guess you missed those when you were searching for "saint" Sherman huh? Such a nice guy as to wish the murder of women and children. Kind of hard to say a man didn't do something when his own words prove you wrong isn't it?

Nobody ever declared Sherman a saint. However, it is worth noting the reasoning behind this estimation of what it would take to defeat the south.

What drove the leading citizens of the South was the preservation of slavery. Various declarations of scession, Confederate state constitutions, and the statements of people like Edmund Ruffin were quite clear about it. These were ideologues who were willing to fight a Civil War to preserve their right to enslave black people.

Ideological wars such as this one are not won by the conquest of land. The enemy have to be personally defeated, which was Sherman's real point. The reasoning is identical to our goal of unconditional surrender by Nazi Germany.

It's worth noting, BTW, that almost all of those "murdered" women and childred you're crying about, surived the war and died of old age....

[Non-Sequitur]

No, actually I have it right. I would refer you to "Allegiance : Fort Sumter, Charleston, and the Beginning of the Civil War" by David Detzer. When he discussed the situation with the representatives of the South Carolina governor, Buchanan crafted the agreement in such a way as to allow the movement of troops already in Charleston from one post to another. Major Anderson's movement from Moultrie to Sumter was in keeping with that agreement. The southern tresspass into Pinkney and Moultrie was not. But I digress, what was the other agreements you were referring to? I confess that I had not heard of them.

[steve-b]

Nonsense. Even if one stipulates some sort of agreement against reinforcement, transfer from one post to another within the federal facilities at the site does not constitute that.

[r9etb]

It would seem that the yankee government broke the promise first, as usual.

You should try reading for comprehension. The short history you provided simply proves the aggressive intent of the South.

[WhiskeyPapa]

"There is a class of people in the South, men, women and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order." --- General William T. Sherman General Thomas Ewing

Can you name one civilian executed by Sherman's men or on his orders?

Forty loyal Texans were hanged in Gainesville, Texas during October 1862, simply for being loyal to the U.S. Twenty-two loyal North Carlinians were similarly executed by CSA forces. About 180 murders were committed in the Raid on Lawrence, Kansas. Fifty-three Union soldiers were murdered at Saltville, Virginia in October, 1864, and between 3-400 Union soldiers were murdered in cold blood at Fort Pillow. I make that about 600 murders.

There were no similar acts on the U.S. side.

Walt

[r9etb]

even if you hate him( I'm sure you do) you gotta admit was the greatest military genius of the war

The Civil War was really the first modern war, in the sense that it involved large armies travelling engaging in protracted campaigns over vast distances, with tremendous logistical requirements.

Sherman's success was rooted in his recognition that if you can wreck the logistical tail, you can defeat the army it serves.

This is such an obvious thing now -- it's the very first thing we do in any war we fight. But Sherman did it first, and thoroughly.

[Willie Green]

What, you've never heard of the dreaded Mule Bomb?
I'm told Osama and the boys are working on it themselves...

The Teamsters' Union was at it's peak back then,
They never would've let the Southern Scabs (predecessors to the SS) past the picket line!

[Non-Sequitur]

You forgot this one:

"War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. And I say let us give them all they want; not a word of argument, not a sign of let up, no cave-in until we are whipped - or they are."

And this one:

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out."

And this one:

"I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands upon thousands of the families of rebel soldiers left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes home to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes and under the Government of their inheritance."

[Aurelius]

"Prove it."

Another bug in your response generating software, Walt. You can't answer "Prove it" to a statement of opinion.

[r9etb]

Hmmmmm...interesting theory.

"War is Hell."

-- William T. Sherman, in response to a complaint remarkably like yours.

But of course, as it really happened Sherman's men did not go around "murdering children." That's just you acting like a typical FR pro-confederate.

More likely, in fact, Sherman's tactics probably saved a lot more lives than they cost.

[4CJ]

"With us, when a leader dies, all good men go to lying about him...Abraham Lincoln has almost disappeared from human knowledge. I hear of him, and I read of him in eulogies and biographies, but I fail to recognize the man I knew in life" --- General Don Piatt, Federal Army officer

Those that knew Lincoln, knew him well. Thank you sir.

[Cleburne]

Had the South attempted to sustain guerilla warfare, it is likely that Southern resistance would have eventually led to some sort of deal being struck. Southern guerilla operations were usually rather succesful- small, capable groups of light horse for example- in destroying Union supplies and demoralizinf occupying forces. With the addition of men- based around their homes- engaging in non-conventional attacks on railroads, supply depots, camps, and the like, then fading into the woods or general populace, even greater damage could be done, and this style of operation continued even after the last area of Confederate military control collapsed. Eventually, with casualties and war expenditures mounting, the Northern populace would become weary of a war in which there seemed to be no signs of victory, and one in which, were there victory, they were unlikely to profit much- which was the case in the West, where the subjication and destruction of the indeginous tribes meant an opening of free land and immense stores of wealth. There, long, seemingly victory-less campaigns were more politically feasible, and in the end more likely to succeed, as Indian populations were small and often poorly equiped.

However, the Southern leadership recognized that a war of guerilla tactics was likely to leave the South in ruin far greater than the late war, and thus, wisely I think, chose to completely disband their armies and sue for complete peace and a total end to hostilities.

[wardaddy]

Had the so-called CSA been as committed to the cause as the colonists of 1776 had been, they would have been impossible to defeat.

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.

I will admit this: Had the North been blessed with the caliber of General Officers the South had throughout the war, it would have been over in short order. Aside from Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan..and a handful of others...the North had some piss poor military leaders. On the Southern side, it was the complete opposite. Sure we had Pemberton and Bragg and a few other willynillys but we had a load of top notch field commanders. I shudder to think had Bedford Forrest or TJ Jackson been in charge of Union forces from the getgo...perish the thought.

[steve-b]

Why talk about killing women and children if you're not going to do it? For fun?

It would seem so, judging from the number of "nuke the Ay-rabs" rants (as distinguished from serious comments on the need to break the back of terrorist organizations and support) on FR.

And why bring up traitors to the Confederate government

Anyone who remained loyal to the Union could not be a "traitor" to the Confederate regime, by definition. (Someone who declared loyalty to the Confederacy and then reneged could be such a traitor, but you have produced no evidence that this describes any of the examples cited.)

Do you think that if there were Confederate loyalists in northern states

BWAAAHAHAHA!! You really shouldn't exhibit your ignorance in public.

The fact is, there were fairly large numbers of "Copperheads" in the loyal states. There were incidents of mob violence and unjustified government action against them, but I know of no examples comparable to the outright official murders described earlier in the thread. If you care to cite any, the ball is in your court.

Does this mean that during the Revolution, when the people loyal to Britain were killed for their loyality, that our founding fathers were guilty of "murder"?

Are you referring to death in combat (which happened quite a bit between Tories and Rebels)?