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.
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.
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.
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.
If state rights and other issues were in the cauldron over the fire, slavery was the fuel that kept it warm.
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?
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.
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.
Thread title alone guarantees 500 replies...
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.
"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...
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?
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.
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).
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...
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.
"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....
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! :-)
"Get real. "
Why don't you review the SCOTUS roster again ... and tell me again about how Southern Leadership is in play?
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.
One word: Grits.
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.