[stainlessbanner]

Some new books for your libraries.

[stainlessbanner]

Can you guys repost? I had to start a new thread...thanks!

[varina davis]

As one Virginian expressed it: They never whipped us, Sir, unless they were four to one. If we had had anything like a fair chance, or less disparity of numbers, we should have won our cause and established our independence.

Succinct.

[Mr. Bird]

But upon reflection, a good many historians have questioned their explicit assertions that overwhelming numbers and resources made Northern victory inevitable. If that is true, the Confederate leaders who took their people to war in 1861 were guilty of criminal folly or colossal arrogance

I'm no Civil War scholar, but I believe they led their people to secede from the Union, not to take up arms against it. It was the North that determined this a causus belli.

[WhiskeyPapa]

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

[Nutjob]

Bump

[4CJ]

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.

[Willie Green]

Could the South Have Won?

I suppose had they invented time travel, they could've developed nuclear weaponry ahead of the North.
But they would still have had difficulty manufacturing a viable delivery system.

[PatrioticAmerican]

The South lost because they were just dumb, racist hicks who were drunk all the time that didn't know how to fight. At least that what people NOT from the South think.

Me? I think the South damned near won several times. You don't fight a war for years on end against someone who can't fight, so, obviously, the South put up a good fight.

Funny how some people think they are better than someone else. I hear all the time here in Denver how stupid the South is by people who have never been there. It is even funnier how they go there and get taken advantage of.

[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!

[BnBlFlag]

A better question is SHOULD the South have seceeded and the quetion is a resounding YES!

[Mad Dawgg]

"Could the South Have Won?"

Nah, Lee's Arm was suspect and their defense was long in the tooth! Besides the North had better draft picks!

[Twodees]

Red Jamie McP can KMA.

[mustapha mond]

The south was doomed by endless amounts of Irish cannon fodder. -MM

[muleboy]

Many thanks for the post. Lots of new books to procure.

I found it odd that Mcpherson would argue such a position until I remembered that to suggest that the South could have won, serves to make JM's beloved North and Lincoln more admirable and to make the CSA look worse, much the way a pro-team's coach talks up the opposition so that when they are beaten, the victory is more "glorious".

The only way the CSA could have won the war was if Lincoln died or the British intervened.

[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.

[stainlessbanner]

More Good Books

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

[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.

[Teacher317]

I learn more about both sides' perspectives on these threads than I do reading any 3 or 4 CW books. Thanks FReepers!

[Xenalyte]

If they woulda, we'da had it made!

[bescobar]

Grant whooped Lee, get over it. There can be no finer a soldier than Grant. There can be no finer an example of humanity than Grant. He couldn't be beaten. Sorry for your 140-year distrust in them "Damn Yankees" but the world has moved on. From Shiloh to Appommadix Station, the South could not have won against Grant.