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: stainlessbanner

ping


51 posted on 10/15/2005 9:34:25 AM PDT by sionnsar (†trad-anglican.faithweb.com† || (To Libs:) You are failing to celebrate MY diversity! || Iran Azadi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber

Agreed. That is why the North "had" to win.


52 posted on 10/15/2005 9:34:49 AM PDT by RHS in Fairfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RHS in Fairfield

So god makes distinctions like that? ....nevermind...i don't want to change the topic here.


53 posted on 10/15/2005 9:34:58 AM PDT by teldon30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: RHS in Fairfield

"I believe God caused the South to lose because..."

Well, I'm a native Texan, with Bama in my heart, but...

If the South had won, a de-centralized confederacy [or a split North America] would never have mustered the strength to fight the Nazis or the Soviets. "Sometimes I thank God for unanswered prayers".


54 posted on 10/15/2005 9:35:12 AM PDT by Fenris6 (3 Purple Hearts in 4 months w/o missing a day of work? He's either John Rambo or a Fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
"no need to sugar coat it."

In that case I'm:

sending back my fierce defiance and stamping on the cursed alliance!

55 posted on 10/15/2005 9:35:20 AM PDT by trek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Scarpetta

Lee bought a poor battle at Gettsyburg. He should have followed Longstreet's advise and manuevered to the south and assumed a defensive posture like he took at Fredericksburg. It has been speculated that Lee was ill at the time. He was unsually nervous and may have been suffering from the heart disease that laid him low the next spring and eventually killed him.


56 posted on 10/15/2005 9:35:21 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber

Fort Sumter – in Charleston Harbor – was in an ideal position to facilitate the Union blockade of Southern ports. It would also make a good place to launch an invasion of the Deep South.


57 posted on 10/15/2005 9:35:26 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

I have been repeatedly posting that she is a SOUTHERN Christian woman.


Until your research and post, I had not realized how important that factoid is!

Good job, gobucks.


58 posted on 10/15/2005 9:36:31 AM PDT by onyx ((Vicksburg, MS) North is a direction. South is a way of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Fenris6

We will never know, of course, but my conclusion is the opposite: the freedom loving and freedom living people of the South and the North would have opposed the Nazis earlier and even more strongly.


59 posted on 10/15/2005 9:37:51 AM PDT by RHS in Fairfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: teldon30

60 posted on 10/15/2005 9:39:16 AM PDT by TUAN_JIM (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber

The South had 80 years to accomplish the task but instead of abiding by the constitution which allowed the Congress to create a law after 20 years of the signing of the consitution, they screamed state rights on this issue and then continued to build an entire economy based off of it rather than ween themselves off of it. They knew and the North knew that a great battle eventually was to be fought over this, even at the very beginning, it wasnt a matter of if but when.


61 posted on 10/15/2005 9:39:16 AM PDT by aft_lizard (This space waiting for a post election epiphany it now is: Question Everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: gobucks; Wolfstar

Futhermore, toss in the negative remarks about her eddyKshun at SMU... yes, I think you may be on to something, no matter how small, it's THERE.

Also, think about this from Wolfstar

It bears repeating:

The reactionaries' favorite short list are all judges President George W. Bush appointed to the appellate bench.


58 posted on 10/15/2005 11:17:57 AM CDT by Wolfstar (The reactionaries' favorite short list are all judges GWB appointed to the appellate bench.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]


62 posted on 10/15/2005 9:39:45 AM PDT by onyx ((Vicksburg, MS) North is a direction. South is a way of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
Could this be the crux of all the angst against Miers? No, but it is a factor. The prominence of Southerners in the "revolution of 1994" caused a case of heartburn in the Republican Party. I remember the rantings of Peter King, for one. Historical memory is more important than people think. The people who live in the "Old Union"--the one that won the Civil War--think they are the natural rulers of the country/
63 posted on 10/15/2005 9:40:16 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber

"You'd be suprised what you can accomplish when you give a group of pissed off millers and lumberjacks rifles."

Did you see the West Wing episode where they invaded Canada? Frickin hillarious:

Sit Room Commander: "Well, the Mounties are armed with 45's and the hunters are carrying...shotguns?"

General: "And a few 50 cal sniper rifles, some night-vision goggles, and -- "

Aide: [snicker]



64 posted on 10/15/2005 9:40:45 AM PDT by Fenris6 (3 Purple Hearts in 4 months w/o missing a day of work? He's either John Rambo or a Fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

True, but it was Joshua Chaimberlain that singlehandedly won the war for the Union by issuing one order at Gettysburg..otherwise, the Southern Army would have been in positon to flank the Union Army while holding the high ground. In other words, except for Chaimberlain, we in the South would be paying taxes to Richmond.


65 posted on 10/15/2005 9:41:56 AM PDT by GeorgiaDawg32 (Honest officer, I wasn't speeding.....I was qualifying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

There is a wonderful new book, that shows that Lee probably didn't just have "a really bad day" on the final day of Gettysburg, but in fact had sent JEB Stuart to attack from behind the lines to meet up with Pickett from the North's rear, but was beaten back by General Custer.

This battle took place far to the east of the main battlefield and is little known today.

If the theory is correct Custer may have single handedly saved the Union.


66 posted on 10/15/2005 9:42:28 AM PDT by RHS in Fairfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: teldon30
This thesis pretty much flies in the face of everything Gary Gallagher argued in The Confederate War. I just don't buy it.

A war of attrition - conventional or especially guerilla - was not the kind of war the South could win, would want to fight, would know *how* to fight, and whose economy was singularly unadapted to fighting.

Lee took the long odds time and again because it was expected, and because he knew that elan and initiative could compensate for inferior numbers. And for three years, it did, in fact, work.

Unfortunately, in the Western Theater most of the good commanders were on the Union side. And it was in the West that the South lost the Civil War.

67 posted on 10/15/2005 9:43:24 AM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yall; teldon30
With as many assets as the Confederacy possessed, how could the South possibly have lost?

They lost because in the end, their 'cause', ~slavery~, was not worth their sacrifice.

-- 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."

The southern men had independence before the war [but they insisted upon their 'right to own slaves'] and they knew they would have it after. -- And at some point in the war, most southern men privately came to the conclusion that owning slaves was not worth a terrible war..
They lost their 'cause' with that realization, and with it they lost the will to prolong the war.

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?
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 posted on 10/15/2005 9:43:39 AM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fenris6
Did you see the West Wing episode where they invaded Canada?

And how they solved the problem by threatening to yank their hunting liscenses for the year unless they withdrew. Yeah, those guys were from the west.

69 posted on 10/15/2005 9:44:19 AM PDT by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: teldon30

Small problem with the Southern soldier's quotation: in the first 12 major battles of the Civil War, the South was usually pretty close to the Union in terms of total troops employed. There were a couple of disparities (can't remember which, but once the Union was up by about 30,000 men; once or twice the South had a slight manpower advantage)---but the key is that in all but ONE of those, the South lost a higher % of men/troops committed than the North. Only at Fredericksburg did the Confederacy come anywhere close to a dominant loss/troops engaged ratio. Most of the time, Confed. losses were in the 13-19% range, while Union losses were in the 10-15% range. NO ARMY, especially George Washington's, has ever lost that kind of ratio game and won a war.


70 posted on 10/15/2005 9:45:35 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faireturn

good post....thinking.


71 posted on 10/15/2005 9:45:39 AM PDT by teldon30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
This is the real reason, just like all the reasons associated with why the South was defeated, that you don't see much discussion in the MSM about why she is so hated by 'Conservatives'.

Get real.

You'd have to explain why most of the Republican national leadership for the last decade has been from the South or the border states.

All of the conservatives in question would have been ecstatic with such sons and daughters of the South as Bill Pryor or Edith Jones. It's about experience and aptitude, not her zip code.

72 posted on 10/15/2005 9:46:06 AM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard

Yeah, Southern slavers held on to the institution long past the point of sense for reasons that I can't fathom from my 21st century perspective. Sharecropping would have been much more profitable, but then I suppose that they would have had to start treating blacks like human beings.


73 posted on 10/15/2005 9:47:19 AM PDT by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana

I agree....That's like screaming racism where it doesn't exist....I'm very southern by the way.


74 posted on 10/15/2005 9:47:53 AM PDT by teldon30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Fenris6
Having read "A Stillness At Appomattox", I'm amazed at the ineptness and cowardice of the Union conscript. Several battles seem to have been won by a Union officer rallying the troops at the last moment, when all seemed lost. And most of those officers appear to have come from the MidWest, not the North.

In fairness, that was mainly a problem at the end of the war and mainly in the Virginia theater, after Grant had bled down his force to the point that they had to scrape the bottom of the manpower pool to fill the slots.

And given how poorly led they were by junior and even some senior officers in the Army of the Potomac, I wouldn't have felt very inspired to charge Confederate works on their behalf, either.

75 posted on 10/15/2005 9:48:35 AM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: faireturn

"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."

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 posted on 10/15/2005 9:49:01 AM PDT by Fenris6 (3 Purple Hearts in 4 months w/o missing a day of work? He's either John Rambo or a Fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: teldon30
I must say, this is a rather gentlemanly thread, as I expected it to be a lot of shouting and name calling with discussion of the actual cause of the confederate states defeat' at a minimum.

Which was Davis and Johnston's utter failure to rally the home guard and stop Sherman on his March to the Sea, what with the rebs interior lines of supply and communication and a narrow front upon which Sherman advanced, mostly unopposed. Sherman destroyed both the future foodstock for Lee's Army of Northern Virginia and the deep South's will to carry on. When Sherman made Savannah and turned left to support Grant, Lee became caught in a vise without support, supply or a way out. With Lee defeated, there was absolutely no standing force left to the South that could, under any conceivable circumstance, oppose the North's juggernaut.

77 posted on 10/15/2005 9:50:37 AM PDT by woofer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Lee bought a poor battle at Gettsyburg. He should have followed Longstreet's advise and manuevered to the south and assumed a defensive posture like he took at Fredericksburg. It has been speculated that Lee was ill at the time. He was unsually nervous and may have been suffering from the heart disease that laid him low the next spring and eventually killed him.

I've read that Lincoln was angry that Meade didn't pursue Lee and allowed him to get away from Gettysburg. As a result, we had two more years of war.

78 posted on 10/15/2005 9:50:49 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: teldon30

An interesting theory I read years ago, was that it was due to the differences in breeds of horses used by each side. The North used a smaller, more sturdy Morgan horse type which required less fuel, the South used taller English thoroughbred types which required higher fuel intake and more easily broke down.


79 posted on 10/15/2005 9:52:28 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: faireturn
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 posted on 10/15/2005 9:52:45 AM PDT by trek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: teldon30

Tom Scott was the most valuable man in the North's Army. His railroad was the dominant factor is trucking supplies and troops quickly to meet the Armies of the South wherever they popped up. Following the War, Tom Scott leveraged his position as the most valuable man to create the first modern American corporation, which led directly to the present dominance of America in the world of commerce and statecraft.


81 posted on 10/15/2005 9:53:16 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

The secession movement really gained steam with Lincoln's election, which was seen in the South as the final rejection by the rest of the country to the idea of incorporating more states out west where slavery would be legal. Realizing this, and that the days of slavery were numbered, South Carolina started the move toward secession and was shortly thereafter joined by the rest of the Confederate states.

82 posted on 10/15/2005 9:54:04 AM PDT by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
There's a monument in the Cedar Grove Cemetery in Lebanon, TN which reads:

THE CONFEDERACY WITHOUT AN ARMY, NAVY, OR GOVERNMENT, 600,000 VOLUNTEERS SUSTAINED THE ASSAULT OF 2,778,304 MEN, SUPPORTED BY THE STRONGEST GEVERNMENT IN THE WORLD FOR FOUR YEARS. ITS DESTRUCTION RENDERED NECESSARY A PUBLIC DEBT OF $2,708.393,885, THE SACRIFICE OF 349,944 LIVES AND OF 1,366,443 PRISONERS.

(Note: bad comma splices are as they appear in my source)

Incidentally, I'm sitting about a mile from this monument as I type this.

83 posted on 10/15/2005 9:54:22 AM PDT by Morgan's Raider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Fenris6

If state rights and other issues were in the cauldron over the fire, slavery was the fuel that kept it warm.


84 posted on 10/15/2005 9:54:41 AM PDT by aft_lizard (This space waiting for a post election epiphany it now is: Question Everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: teldon30

Why didn't Abe let the South go? Breakaway states are getting independence all over the Earth. What about Taiwan? We have an agreement to help Taiwan. What if Abe were the leader of China. Would he let Taiwan go?


85 posted on 10/15/2005 9:55:33 AM PDT by Blake#1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fenris6
If the South had won, a de-centralized confederacy [or a split North America] would never have mustered the strength to fight the Nazis or the Soviets. "Sometimes I thank God for unanswered prayers".

It was during the reign of imperator Woodrow Wilson that the US got dragged into foreign conflicts that were none of our business. The entry of the USA in WWI prolonged that conflict by seveal years, and brought about the collapse of the Ottoman, Russian, and Austro-Hungarian empires, followd by the rise of national and international (German and Russian) socialism. Wilson's reign also saw the percentage of the national GNP confiscated by the central/"federal" government rise from 8% (less than God requires) to 20% (double the tithe).

While president at Princeton U, at the age of 50, Wilson indulged in an extramarital affair -- and from that point on was never able to make a mistake. In his own eyes, at least. It was at some point after this event that he conceived the notion of outperforming Jesus, Who could only speak of the desirablity of peace on earth, while He, the great Wilson, had a scheme (his word) to make peace happen.

86 posted on 10/15/2005 9:55:52 AM PDT by TomSmedley (Calvinist, optimist, home schooling dad, exuberant husband, technical writer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Morgan's Raider
That's a great point.

Given the correlation of forces in 1861, the wonder is that the South lasted as long as it did or came as close to victory as it did.

If the war had happened 20 years earlier (especially) or 20 years later, the South have been much more advantageously placed to win its independence. The 1860's presented all the benefits of industrialization to the North while denying the defensive firepower of repeating rifles and rifled artilery in any real quantity to the South.

87 posted on 10/15/2005 9:58:32 AM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: teldon30; SouthernFreebird

Thread title alone guarantees 500 replies...


88 posted on 10/15/2005 9:59:37 AM PDT by ErnBatavia (Like a midget at a urinal - stay on your toes...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynicom

WE have many "Snow Birds" in our area. It's an honorable position to take and I (and others) enjoy them very much.Most of them maintain their status because of family and homes they don't want to let go of. It's understandable. I would reccommend the Hill Country, however. It's a bit further, but NC is lots colder than Texas. Besides that we have better BBQ than anyone anywhere.


89 posted on 10/15/2005 10:00:04 AM PDT by Adrastus (If you don't like my attitude, talk to some one else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: onyx

"I have been repeatedly posting that she is a SOUTHERN Christian woman. "

I was listening to NPR Diva Diane Reims during her interview w/ Tony Blankley she said that she's get the feelings no one can handle the hearings and that the earliest they are going to happen is after the new year.

I have heard her voice. It is a nice, crisp, SOUTHERN voice.

You are welcome. Sheesh this was so obvious all along...


90 posted on 10/15/2005 10:00:08 AM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: trek

If the South had tried an insurgency style of warfare, wouldn't Lincoln's freeing of the slaves have created a counter insurgency in the South?


91 posted on 10/15/2005 10:00:20 AM PDT by slyfoxvirden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Blake#1
Why didn't Abe let the South go? Breakaway states are getting independence all over the Earth. What about Taiwan? We have an agreement to help Taiwan. What if Abe were the leader of China. Would he let Taiwan go?

For one thing, the country would have almost certainly split into several pieces once the precedent had been established.

There was serious talk in the Pacific West about splitting off in the firts months of the war. The Mormons would have been happy to go their own way as well.

92 posted on 10/15/2005 10:00:30 AM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
It has been speculated that Lee was ill at the time. He was unsually nervous and may have been suffering from the heart disease that laid him low the next spring and eventually killed him.

I've read that General Lee was suffering from dysentery during the Battle of Gettysburg - not good in July heat. He was probably dehydrated )(which can manifest itself into heart problems).

93 posted on 10/15/2005 10:00:43 AM PDT by Morgan's Raider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: onyx

One other very very interesting point to make: Robert Bork was born and raised a .....drum roll .... Presbryterian, before he converted to Opus Dei type catholicism...


94 posted on 10/15/2005 10:01:32 AM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: teldon30
Somehow I just don't feel the war produced any winners. Militarily, perhaps. But that was just academic, considering the numbers.

The war is still being fought on other fronts. Nothing can justify the killing of over 600,000 American Citizens on both sides of the battle. That is why I will continue to call it the war between the federal government and the states -- both northern and southern.

95 posted on 10/15/2005 10:01:39 AM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

"The people who live in the "Old Union"--the one that won the Civil War--think they are the natural rulers of the country/"

I've been doing homework on this tidbit. I'm finding it to be a very very interesting topic, especially the religious affiliation of the major players. The patterns that surface are fascinating....


96 posted on 10/15/2005 10:02:40 AM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Adrastus

Sure take a gentlemanly good thought thread and toss it up into what is sure to be an angry name calling thread by declaring your BBQ is better! How dare you sir, KC is much better anyways! :-)


97 posted on 10/15/2005 10:03:37 AM PDT by aft_lizard (This space waiting for a post election epiphany it now is: Question Everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana

"Get real. "

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


98 posted on 10/15/2005 10:03:54 AM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: TomSmedley
Good points all. A very difficult question worthy of a thread all its own is which president was worse: Woodrow Wilson or Jimmy Carter.

We could rank them in various categories: foreign policy foolishness, domestic policy foolishness, post-presidential stupidity.

A "quien es mas macho?" format would be suitable.

99 posted on 10/15/2005 10:04:02 AM PDT by trek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: teldon30
Why the South lost the Civil War

One word: Grits.

100 posted on 10/15/2005 10:04:15 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Islam is merely Nazism without the snappy fashion sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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