Posted on 09/18/2005 5:50:31 AM PDT by mainepatsfan
Yes he did. Great quote.
I sometimes wonder if old Joe J. ever imagined that his offhand comment would go down in history.
Slavery was an abomination! However, states rights were the issue. I do agree that if the south had won, it would have been very bleak for the slaves and the South in the long term, but eventually, the entire system of slavery and their agricultural economy would break down .
States rights and tariffs were the issue. Ironic considering that the modern GOP has flip-flopped and is now fanatically pro-"free trade".
An independent confederacy would have realized, just as the early independent USA realized, that you can't build a modern economy entirely on an agrarian base. You need industry, and it's easier to develop industry if your own native producers aren't driven out of business or never come to exist in the first place because your country is flooded with cheap foreign goods. In other words, "protectionism" works; it worked for Britain, it worked for the USA and Germany, it worked for Japan, it is working for China. "Free trade" is the mantra of the imperialists who want places to dump their goods and sources of cheap raw material (which is all an independent South would have been to Britain unless it changed its ways).
An independent South would have either industrialized and set up its own tariff barrier, which would have made slavery economically unproductive resulting in de facto emancipation sooner or later, ie, the South would have simply recreated the "American System" of Clay and Lincoln, ironically, or it would have stubbornly held to its agrarian bias and gone the way of South American countries like Argentina, or Brasil, which, also ironically, emancipated their own slaves in the 1880's because even agriculture was becoming industrialized and slavery wasn't making much economic sense anymore. In other words, slavery was going away no matter what, and the South would have recognized this sooner or later. What the South could not abide was being told what to do by the North, which was the real issue, not slavery: States Rights, federalism, etc.
IMO it would have been much better to let the South realize on its own terms the non-viability of a slave economy, rather than fighting a war and setting the foundations for federal tyranny to force them to be "righteous" like the North was supposed to be. But again, it wasn't really about slavery; it was about who was calling the shots, who paid the tariffs, who got to spend the federal money, etc.
All the while the 20th Maine , the heros of Little Round Top in Gettysburd sat fresh but idle in the town Sharpsburg just down the road . What a great guy McClellan was for the south . They called him the Virgina Creeper .
Antietam was indeed a paradoxical battle. Militarily, it was a draw, or actually a little less than a draw for the Union. But in its consequences (which incidentally appalled McClellan) it was the decisive battle of the war, and a turning point in modern history.
Been to Antietam, big Civil war buff, but in my view even if McClellan had pursued Lee and caught him, Lee would have found a way to beat him. All the generals before Grant were no match for Lee. Even then with overwhelming superiority it took the North one year to finally grind down Lee's worn out forces.
A lot of folks don't realize how close McClellan got to Richmond in 1862.
It was but it'll always be overshadowed by Gettysburg.
I wonder how McClellan would have handled things at Gettysburg.
Possibly but he should have at least tried.
There would have been no second day if McClellan had been in charge . It would have been another great skidaddle . But think of this , if Stonewall had been around at Gettysburg , he would have convinced Lee to attack at the end of that long Union line behind the stone wall (no pun intended ).End result ,the south could not occupy Gettysburg it was worthless , Harrisburg had the rails Lee wanted to destroy . Bummer bummer for the south .
There would have been no second day if McClellan had been in charge . It would have been another great skidaddle . But think of this , if Stonewall had been around at Gettysburg , he would have convinced Lee to attack at the end of that long Union line behind the stone wall (no pun intended ).End result ,the south could not occupy Gettysburg it was worthless , Harrisburg had the rails Lee wanted to destroy . Bummer bummer for the south .
27,000 Americans died as the result of that one day of fighting making it the bloodest day in american military history . 9 / 18 / 02
27,000 Americans died as the result of that one day of fighting making it the bloodest day in american military history . 9 / 18 / 02
I agree. He should have tried, but that was McClellan. Lincoln could not make him do what he, McClellan, could not do. He just didn't have it in him. Grant would have pursued Lee and had a better chance of defeating Lee. Grant was a far better strategy man than people think and was ready to use his men. But even then I wouldn't dismiss Lee. He was the greatest general of the war and maybe the greatest American general ever. Unfortunately he commanded the Southern forces. But he was great nevertheless.
Lee should have told Jeff Davis that he would not bleed his army white to save Richmond.
Estimates are 22,720 total casualties, of which 3,650 were killed, 17,300 wounded, and 1,770 missing/captured. More info at:
http://www.nps.gov/anti/casualty.htm
Please bump this or repost for today.
Thanks
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.