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

Skip to comments.

Why the South lost the Civil War
http://fredericksburg.com/ ^ | 10/15/2005 | NED HARRISON

Posted on 10/15/2005 8:38:50 AM PDT by teldon30

SOON AFTER THE end of the Civil War, as the Confederates streamed home after four bitter years of fighting, a Virginia soldier was heard to say, "They never whipped us, Sir, unless they were four to one. If we had anything like a fair chance, or less disparity of numbers, we should have won our Cause and established our independence."

That defiance, along with the question of why they "whipped us," have continued to this day. Two points stand out: The first is that the war lasted as long as it did, and the second is that the South lost.

That long-ago Virginia veteran expressed the feelings of the entire South: With as many assets as the Confederacy possessed, how could the South possibly have lost?

Its advantages were enormous, starting with a gigantic and contiguous land mass that stretched east to west from the Atlantic to the far reaches of Texas; and south to north from the Gulf of Mexico up to the Ohio River. It was all Confederate, the whole 750,000 square miles of it, a land brimming with natural resources.

The South controlled mile after mile of seacoast, perfect as a source of food; as well as dozens of harbors and coves and inlets and bays and riverbanks, ideal for smuggling and evading the Union blockade they knew was coming. The South also had a dedicated and devoted population that believed passionately in the righteousness of their Cause.

They knew they were facing huge odds--but they looked to their own ancestors, their own fathers and grandfathers, who had fought the British, the mightiest power in the world at the time, and had won their freedom. Why not a second time against a similar oppressor? They even thought they could fight the same war--they could fight defensively, as had the Colonists, knowing that the Union, as the British, would have to invade and occupy, and then destroy their will to resist in order to claim victory.

It didn't work out that way--and over the next several columns, we are going to talk about the reasons the South lost the Civil War. Of course, there is a corollary: If we try to find out why the South lost, we can also learn why the North won.

Truth be told, experts seldom agree on a single reason; they generally list about six overall concepts.

1. The fundamental economic superiority of the North.

2. A basic lack of strategy in the way the South fought the war.

3. The inept Southern performance in foreign affairs.

4. The South did not have a dominating civilian leader.

5. The Confederate Constitution put too much emphasis on individual and states rights and did not stress the responsibilities of the individual or the state to the federal government.

6. Abraham Lincoln.

I'll discuss each of these reasons in upcoming columns, but I am interested in what you think. If you have thoughts about why the South did not win its independence, please mail or e-mail your own reasons about why the South lost--or the North won. I'll print as many opinions as I can.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Gen. Robert E. Lee should have known how to fight a winning war of independence. Both were West Point graduates, and had studied how Gen. George Washington had won the Revolutionary War simply by not losing it. It was the best example of the strategy a weaker enemy is forced to use when he fights a larger, better-armed enemy with incomparably better resources, better finances and an ability to prolong a war indefinitely.

Gen. Washington's Rule No. 1: Husband your resources and avoid losing the war.

No. 2: Avoid head-to-head battles that use up your manpower, your most precious asset.

No. 3. Prolong the war.

No. 4. Hope that the enemy would grow heartily sick of the casualties in a war that never seems to end.

There were some other Gen. Washington rules:

No. 5. The Revolution would continue as long as he had the Continental Army, which was the only real power he had.

No. 6. Thus, do not risk the army except in the most dire emergency or when the odds are heavily in your favor.

No. 7. Do not risk the army to defend territory because it is the army that the British have to subdue, not geography.

No. 8. Remember that most of the fighting will be in your territory in geography you know best. Frustrate the British by raids, continual skirmishing, and capturing their supplies, always staying just beyond their ability to defeat you.

These were the rules for victory, and yet neither Davis nor Gen. Lee adopted this "fight-the-war-not-to-win-it-but-to-avoid-losing-it" strategy, even though they knew it was a tried and true road to independence.

Why? Their own ancestors had shown that it worked. In modern times, we have seen it work, too: In World War II, the Russians traded space for time until they could build up their own war-making capability and then go on the offensive.

In the Vietnam War, Ho Chi Minh used it all too well. That war lasted from 1954 to 1975. Ho understood that in order to win a war against more powerful enemies (France, the United States), you have to follow certain rules to lead more powerful enemies into giving up the struggle.

The Vietnam War was a conflict that for us seemed to have no end. Ho's delaying tactics eventually worked: America got sick of a never-ending war that appeared to produce nothing but casualties, and so we made peace with an enemy that had but a fraction of our power. We were the more powerful combatant, yet we gave up the struggle.

The Confederacy never even tried to follow Washington's precepts. Part of the reason is the nature of Southern men. It went counter to the Southern psyche, which was the "attack" strategy for winning any battle. The Confederacy's high command followed their West Point training of "charge" to defeat their enemy. They were convinced that "aggressive attack" was the best and really the only way to win a war.

Could the Washington precepts have worked in the Civil War? We will never know how it would have worked out, but it could not have turned out any worse for the Southern Cause.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: americanhistory; civilwar; dixie; southernvalor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-255 next last
To: teldon30
I think we should compare how the terrorists in Iraq are executing Washington's plan:

No. 1: Husband your resources and avoid losing the war.

They have been expending their resources at a ridiculous rate, like they expect to win the war within 6 months. Now that they are running short of in-house suicide bombers, they must trick foreigners our kidnap families and have the father pay the family ransom with his life. They are not using #1 very well.

No. 2: Avoid head-to-head battles that use up your manpower, your most precious asset.

Why do they think it is wise to hold towns like Falluja?

No. 3. Prolong the war.

It always helps when the media is on your side.

No. 4. Hope that the enemy would grow heartily sick of the casualties in a war that never seems to end.

Employ Cindy Sheehan?

No. 5. The Revolution would continue as long as he had the Continental Army, which was the only real power he had.

There were always new recruits from the people for Continental Army losses. I doubt there are the same amount of recruits from the people of Iraq. Instead they turn to foreigners.

No. 6. Thus, do not risk the army except in the most dire emergency or when the odds are heavily in your favor.

This means they have to be able to achieve a single tactical victory. How killing civilians achieves this, I do not know.

No. 7. Do not risk the army to defend territory because it is the army that the British have to subdue, not geography.

The insurgency has given up their strongholds. Not by their choice though.

No. 8. Remember that most of the fighting will be in your territory in geography you know best. Frustrate the British by raids, continual skirmishing, and capturing their supplies, always staying just beyond their ability to defeat you.

This assumes that your opponent has finite resources and that all you have to do is starve them. Relative to the insurgency, the US has almost infinite resources. Destroy a tank, helicopter, or truck, and a new one will be sent out tomorrow. It doesn't matter how much stuff our ours they destroy, we will always have replacements.

101 posted on 10/15/2005 10:05:24 AM PDT by burzum (Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.-Adm H Rickover)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomSmedley
The entry of the USA in WWI prolonged that conflict by seveal years,

The US entered World War I on April 6, 1917. The major phase of the war ended on 3 October, 1918 with the German surrender (the Austrians held out for another month until November 3d). How could that be construed as "prolonging" the war by "several years"?

102 posted on 10/15/2005 10:05:27 AM PDT by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: RHS in Fairfield

yes, slavery as practiced in the South is the worst thing that ever happened in the history of the world or ever will

everything else pales.

feel better now?


103 posted on 10/15/2005 10:05:39 AM PDT by wardaddy (I'm an Isaiah sort of man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard

Oh, Lord. I should have thought ahead for that one. All I can say in my defense is "Coopers" in Llano. But even honorable men can disagree honestlt.


104 posted on 10/15/2005 10:06:56 AM PDT by Adrastus (If you don't like my attitude, talk to some one else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: teldon30

I guess the Arabs and the Jews, and all those other Europeans that still hold grudges, aren't the only ones that can't move on.


105 posted on 10/15/2005 10:06:59 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #106 Removed by Moderator

To: Adrastus

oops, "honestly"


107 posted on 10/15/2005 10:08:02 AM PDT by Adrastus (If you don't like my attitude, talk to some one else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
Why don't you review the SCOTUS roster again ... and tell me again about how Southern Leadership is in play?

Why don't you review the roster of appeals and district court judges nominated by Bush and approved by the Senate...and tell me how Southern leadership is faring there?

Are we really to believe there are no better qualified southerners than Harriet Miers?

108 posted on 10/15/2005 10:09:10 AM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: slyfoxvirden
"...slaves have created a counter insurgency in the South?"

Having the slaves rise up in revolt was also part of the strategery of emancipation.

109 posted on 10/15/2005 10:09:12 AM PDT by trek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: teldon30

Don't forget that the US treasury had received an infusion of that evil gold from the California Gold Rush, allowing purchase of foreign goods and services previously not available. And even some of the smallest mining towns here sent troop contingents to fight mainly for the North.


110 posted on 10/15/2005 10:10:47 AM PDT by tertiary01 (For every Act of God, the Libs will demand a human sacrifice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Adrastus
My choice would be South year round but that is not possible.
111 posted on 10/15/2005 10:11:24 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana

"Are we really to believe there are no better qualified southerners than Harriet Miers?"

Great question. What are the names off hand of who you would suggest?


112 posted on 10/15/2005 10:11:51 AM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

Even at the beginning of the nation the quakers and such held a big hold on the thought of the northern states where as in the south not so much, its evident in 1793 when a delegation went to congress to attempt to declare slavery illegal led by Benjamin Franklin, even though the constitution forbade such action until 1808.

Of course that event set back the cause of ending slavery until the Civil War when it essentially in compromise made the 1808 provision moot by act of congress and it took an executive order to change it. Of course the problem being was that there was a whole lot of assuming going on, every state north of the potomac assumed slavery was going to end within there lifetimes, and the Virginia dynasty and SC and Georgia saw a wink a nod that it wouldnt end.


113 posted on 10/15/2005 10:12:08 AM PDT by aft_lizard (This space waiting for a post election epiphany it now is: Question Everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: teldon30
All wrong.

The South lost the war because they did not build the canals that would have tied the West to them.

The North did.

Ironic when one considers that the West was all originally Virginia.

114 posted on 10/15/2005 10:12:55 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irish_Thatcherite
Precisely the rules Michael Collins used in the Irish War of Independence!

Do "Uncle Ho" & General Giap strike a resonant cord? How about Sun Tzu? Fools rush in where angles fear to tread.

Regards,
GtG

PS The South was NEVER defeated, they're just resting up for the next round. (Northern by birth, Texan at heart)

115 posted on 10/15/2005 10:13:17 AM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: vetvetdoug

A save your Dixie cups ping.


116 posted on 10/15/2005 10:14:23 AM PDT by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
"What are the names off hand of who you would suggest?"

This is not really the right thread for this, but if we must have an unqualified crony for SCOTUS I would prefer the chief legal council at Halliburton. Cheney probably "knows his heart" and a nomination like that would at least have the benefit of making the left go nuts.

117 posted on 10/15/2005 10:15:45 AM PDT by trek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: teldon30; Fenris6; trek
The South also had a dedicated and devoted population that believed passionately in the righteousness of their Cause.
Initially, of course. But individuals slowly lost their will to fight as they realized the 'lost cause' aspect of their rebellion. The cause of slavery was simply not worth dying for.
The author in a way acknowledges this point in his reason #5:
The Confederate Constitution put too much emphasis on individual and states rights and did not stress the responsibilities of the individual or the state to the federal government.
-- Nor did it stress the principles behind that government. In effect, the CSA was asking men to die for a planters 'right' to own slaves.
68 faireturn





good post....thinking.
71 teldon30





I thought Slavery wasn't a major issue of the war until midway through when that pesky Moral Majority [Northern Repub Abolistionists?] gained steam? Did I misunderstand that?
76 Fenris6





[ - Thats the 'states rights' crowd contention, -- but seeing that in actuality, no States lost any rights until the early 1900's socialist revolution, - it's become part of the lost cause myth.]






You must be the product of a government school.
Slavery was not the cause of the war. Lincoln himself said as much.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a tactic employed deep into the war by Lincoln to rally support for the war.
Tariffs that enriched Northern merchants at the expense of Southerners galvanized opposition to the Union much more than the right of rich plantation owners to hold slaves.
80 trek






[ -- "Slavery was not the cause of the war. Lincoln himself said as much." -- Care to quote Lincoln? And can you tell me just which 'states rights' were being violated? ]
118 posted on 10/15/2005 10:16:40 AM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: knight05
the south should get over it. it is 150 years now!!!!

We have, it's just you Yankees are sore winners.

119 posted on 10/15/2005 10:16:46 AM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: RHS in Fairfield

I agree. I think the North won over the South because the North was fighting a moral cause, i.e. a war against slavery. Say what you want about "states rights" and all the other political stuff, but it was about slavery.


120 posted on 10/15/2005 10:20:36 AM PDT by manwiththehands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands

I agree. In the churchs in most northern states it was regularly being preached that slavery was morally and biblically wrong and couldnt fit in with a republican government, where as in the south not so. They were being taught that the North was encroaching on there rights and that tarrifs and such were evidence of it, when you boil it down to its core, its morality versus a governmental ideology, morality wil almost always win out.


121 posted on 10/15/2005 10:25:16 AM PDT by aft_lizard (This space waiting for a post election epiphany it now is: Question Everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: faireturn

Slavery indeed was not the sole cause of the Civil War but it was an implied side cause that the North had been wanting to end and it provided a clear cause in the end for the North to hone in on.


122 posted on 10/15/2005 10:27:21 AM PDT by aft_lizard (This space waiting for a post election epiphany it now is: Question Everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: faireturn
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

emphasis mine.

123 posted on 10/15/2005 10:27:46 AM PDT by trek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Irish_Thatcherite

1-4 have been adopted by Al Quida.


124 posted on 10/15/2005 10:29:25 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Lord, help me with me, I ask so little of you...really..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RHS in Fairfield
So....you think "God" just had issues with Southern slavery? LOL Apparently...he was fine with the North's policy of haulin' and sellin' and he even went so far as to order the Israelites to take slaves.

Personally...I don't think God had anything to do with it.

125 posted on 10/15/2005 10:31:02 AM PDT by TNdandelion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

I wonder if the military significance of Gettysburg has been overrated.

The defeat at Gettysburg did not cripple the Army of Northern Virginia as an effective force; nor would a victory have brought the Confederacy any closer to victory, since the Army of the Potomac would have kept pursuing it throughout Pennsylvania and Maryland while the Southerners were forced to forage in increasingly hostile territory as they got further away from their supply lines.

The loss of Vicksburg at the same time to the South was much more damaging to the cause because it gave the North effective control of the Mississippi River and cut the eastern and western halves of the Confederacy off from each other.

Perhaps Gettysburg's significance is more psychological, in retrospect, than military.


126 posted on 10/15/2005 10:31:08 AM PDT by Loyalist (Raphel mai amech zabi almi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: trek
"This is not really the right thread for this,"

Ok, maybe you could answer the question over at

Who was the last conservative white southern protestant appointed to SCOTUS ?

127 posted on 10/15/2005 10:31:23 AM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: teldon30
Why the South lost the Civil War

1) The North kicked its ass.

128 posted on 10/15/2005 10:32:03 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynicom

condolences are in order, then. Keep the Hill Country in mind for the day you can make the move. At least come for a visit.April and May are perfect...JUne is, too...ah,, well,come anytime.


129 posted on 10/15/2005 10:33:11 AM PDT by Adrastus (If you don't like my attitude, talk to some one else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: TNdandelion

So....you think "God" just had issues with Southern slavery? LOL Apparently...he was fine with the North's policy of haulin' and sellin' and he even went so far as to order the Israelites to take slaves.
Personally...I don't think God had anything to do with it.
_____________________

Truth bump....


130 posted on 10/15/2005 10:40:24 AM PDT by teldon30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber
The US entered World War I on April 6, 1917. The major phase of the war ended on 3 October, 1918 with the German surrender (the Austrians held out for another month until November 3d). How could that be construed as "prolonging" the war by "several years"?

Well, maybe the HOPE of entangling the USA kept the war going for a while before we did jump in, after the Germans torpedoed a military vessel carrying munitions, plus those Americans foolish enough to ignore good-faith efforts by the Germans to warn them against taking passage on the Lusitania. (although, given your screen name, I understand your love for precision!)

131 posted on 10/15/2005 10:43:18 AM PDT by TomSmedley (Calvinist, optimist, home schooling dad, exuberant husband, technical writer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: onyx; gobucks
Thanks for the ping here, onyx. I looked back at what you were responding to in gobucks' earlier post:

"It is a reasonable question actually: who was the last white conservative southern protestant appointed to SCOTUS?"

In the last 50 years, only four SCOTUS justices were Southerners: Abe Fortas, Lewis Powell, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Clarence Thomas.

Here is a link to an excellent website that has brief biographies on every SCOTUS justice. It's well worth comparing them, pre-nomination, to Ms. Miers. No two lives are ever lived exactly the same, but Ms. Miers' resume is very comparable to many SCOTUS justices at the time they were nominated.

For example, of the 17 Chief Justices to date, only five had served as a judge prior to their nomination to the court.

Our first Chief Justice, John Jay, was George Washington's "crony." In those days, no one rose in life without being someone else's "crony."

Our fifth Chief Justice, Roger Brooke Taney, was Andrew Jackson's "crony." Jackson used a recess appointment to make Taney Secretary of the Treasury. When the recess appointment expired, Jackson formally submitted Taney's nomination for Sec. Treasury, and the senate voted him down. Jackson nominated Taney as an associate justice of the SCOTUS, and again the senate declined to confirm him. Finally, Jackson nominated Taney to be Chief Justice and the senate confirmed him.

Our eighth Chief Justice, Melville Weston Fuller, had a resume not too dissimilar from that of Harriet Miers before he was nominated by Grover Cleveland in 1888.

There have been 109 individuals who have served (or are serving) on the SCOTUS. They came from a wide range of backgrounds and life experiences. Only a minority of them went to an elite law school. Forty-three never served as a judge in any capacity prior to their nominations.

132 posted on 10/15/2005 10:43:19 AM PDT by Wolfstar (The reactionaries' favorite short list are all judges GWB appointed to the appellate bench.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: teldon30

Great post teldon30. This is a bookmark for sure.


133 posted on 10/15/2005 10:43:47 AM PDT by Dawgreg (Happiness is not having what you want, but wanting what you have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

I think the reasoning behind this is akin to Farrakhan saying whites blew up the levees in New Orleans intentionally with bombs to kill black people.

Just like Farrakhan's theory, your theory involves inventing hallucinatory discrimination claims, and maligning dozens of sincere people. Imagine what society would be like if we all went around acting like Farrakhan, impugning the motives of others in this way.

Conservatives are guaranteed to be alarmed at any stealth "trust me" candidate with no documented history of advocating a conservative judicial philosophy. Simple isn't it.

I'll turn your theory around in an attempt to open your eyes. What would you think if someone said Bush nominated Mier's because Laura Bush told her to? Since Laura and her are both female evangelical SMU grads. Ugly theory isn't it? Hallucinating discrimination, and maligning the motives of others, is not a pretty thing.


134 posted on 10/15/2005 10:49:24 AM PDT by Mount Athos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: TNdandelion

Amen

more flawed Puritan logic on display


135 posted on 10/15/2005 10:50:07 AM PDT by wardaddy (I'm an Isaiah sort of man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: trek

You tell em' trek! *~*


136 posted on 10/15/2005 10:50:25 AM PDT by Dawgreg (Happiness is not having what you want, but wanting what you have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
In the churchs in most northern states it was regularly being preached that slavery was morally and biblically wrong and couldnt fit in with a republican government, where as in the south not so.

The notion that slavery was a permissable source of self-righteous indignation that justified terrorism and slaughter on an industrial scale can be laid at the feet of the Unitarians. The British empire abolished slavery over the course of 20 years, providing funds to aid in the transition. Today, a disproportionate percentage of black professionals in the real disciplines (excluding govt. work and including medicine and engineering) are of "west indian" origin. In the States, it took the death of 600,000 Americans to achieve that goal, and several decades of military occupation to make it stick.

It was unitarian money that bankrolled domestic terrorist John Brown's slaughter of innocent folks who offered him hospitality (See Otto Scott's meticulously documented book The Secret Six). It was unitarian propaganda that framed human sacrifice as a legitimate substitute for the atonement of Christ. The "Battle Hymn of the Republic" views the union armies as a new incarnation.

We're still suffering the effects of the New England apostasy, that saw church after church take the cross off the steeple and replace it with the weathervane.

137 posted on 10/15/2005 10:52:37 AM PDT by TomSmedley (Calvinist, optimist, home schooling dad, exuberant husband, technical writer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: cynicom

We always said the South would rise again........*~*.


138 posted on 10/15/2005 10:53:32 AM PDT by Dawgreg (Happiness is not having what you want, but wanting what you have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana

So, in your opinion, Abe would take China to war.


139 posted on 10/15/2005 10:53:54 AM PDT by Blake#1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: All
No. 2: Avoid head-to-head battles that use up your manpower, your most precious asset.

No. 3. Prolong the war.

This guy nothing of which he writes. The only way the South was going to win the war meant not doing these two things. Porblem was, the South was unwilling in press any of their early advantages. After Manassas, they should have marched straight into the North and captured a major city. Baltimore was probably closest. Then immediately press that advantage by heading to Philadephia or even further to NYC.

If they had pressed their early advantages they could have conquered much of the North and forced peace.

Problem for them, they were not interested in conquering the North, just keeping what they had. Thus their failure to press their early advatages and in doing so, their failure to bring the war to their enemy. One of Sun Tzu' most basic of all basic tenants he makes. Take the fight to the enemy, do not let him bring it to you.

They didn't have to fight an insurgency war, thus avoid the lessons of Washington and look to more classical warfare advice.

140 posted on 10/15/2005 10:54:27 AM PDT by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx; gobucks

BTW, I included Sandra Day O'Connor as one of the four Southerners in the last 50 years because she was born in El Paso, Texas. However, she lived in Arizona a long time before her SCOTUS nomination.


141 posted on 10/15/2005 10:55:29 AM PDT by Wolfstar (The reactionaries' favorite short list are all judges GWB appointed to the appellate bench.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: cynicom

One outta two ain't bad.....LOL.


142 posted on 10/15/2005 10:55:52 AM PDT by Dawgreg (Happiness is not having what you want, but wanting what you have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TomSmedley

How can you preach about the evils of slavery by using the bible? I am curious....not a baited question at all.


143 posted on 10/15/2005 10:56:20 AM PDT by teldon30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM

Neither side was particularly creative in battlefield tactics. The North won the war because it employed a successful grand strategy, secondarily because of material. One cannot ignore the moral question raised about slavery, either.


144 posted on 10/15/2005 10:57:30 AM PDT by attiladhun2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: teldon30

I'm leaving for Dixie next weekend.

Dixie, Utah (aka Saint George)


145 posted on 10/15/2005 10:59:22 AM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fenris6

By the winter of 1862 the casualties suffered by the North and the strings of defeats in the Eastern Theater was starting to undermind the civilian moral of the North. The US never experienced such a war where soldiers were butchered by out of date tactics employed against the firepower of the rifled infantry. Ironicly while the North did badly in the East, the critical battles to victory was at sea and in the West. If the South did not throw their army away in the Battle for Atlanta and Lee forced the North to attack at Gettysburg by putting his army between the Army of the Potomac and Washington DC as suggested by Longstreet, the war would have lasted longer and there would have been a good chance that the Northern support for the war would have given up, and today the US would be two distinct nations.


146 posted on 10/15/2005 10:59:43 AM PDT by Fee (`+Great powers never let minor allies dictate who, where and when they must fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RHS in Fairfield

Paul Johnson, in A History of the American People", affirms the fact that slavery was always a contentious issue from the time of the original colonies. He also asserts that the south would have won the War of NOrthern Aggression had the gin and harvester been deveoped just a decade or two earlier, thus enabling the South to develope its economy to a greater extent. With mechanization, the proslavery proponents would have not held tightly to he notion of 'chatel' slavery as it was the singular blot on American idealism. Had the South had 20 years to developes its infrastructure and economy, there is little doubt that the south would have prevailed, according to Paul Johnson.


147 posted on 10/15/2005 11:01:23 AM PDT by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dawgreg
If you are a student of history...Karl Marx was an enthusiastic supporter of Lincoln, he even had spies serving in the Northern Army.
148 posted on 10/15/2005 11:04:48 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

"Hallucinating discrimination, and maligning the motives of others, is not a pretty thing."

And you are comparing me to Farrakhan, just about the most openly antisemitic dude in the USA today. And both of these items are in one post with no hint of irony on your part.

My, my ... this Southern White Protestant SCOTUS thing has really really touched a nerve I see.


149 posted on 10/15/2005 11:06:13 AM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

Thanks for the clarification ... and the eye opener too... for El Paso is notoriously a democrat stronghold.


150 posted on 10/15/2005 11:07:24 AM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-255 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