Resurrecting Lincoln

Townhall.com ^ | February 17. 2015 | John Ransom

[central_va]

The South admitted early on it did not have the resources to conquer the North. But that is not written about very much because it is a basic assumption about the US Civil War. The "conquering" was the North trying to conquer the South, their stated goal.

You are ignorant of history but you want to play on these threads about the Civil War. You are not up to the task.

[NicknamedBob]

"You haven’t answered my question. Would you want to live in a Balkanized America?"

We do live in a Balkanized America. It's a recent development, and no I don't like it.

But the reason I didn't specifically answer that question before is that it is an intentional distraction. When the discussion is based on people choosing to elect and construct their own government, in other words to achieve independence, the scare-mongering of "Balkanization" is a mere intentional diversion.

Please recall that our government, the North and the Union, did support Balkanization in the Balkans, when Kosovo wanted its supposed independence.

I didn't like our stance on it then, and I don't now.

We've been coming down on the wrong side of history for a long time now, and I'm wondering just when that tendency got started.

[jmacusa]

The only ignoramus about history here is you. You can’t answer the question. Lee invaded the North and had he won at Gettysburg the war would most certainly have had a different outcome.

[jmacusa]

I’m not trying to distract from anything. The South took up arms to preserve slavery and to expand it into Kansas. You seem to favor their efforts to have done so and thats why I asked the question.

[central_va]

You can’t answer the question. Lee invaded the North and had he won at Gettysburg the war would most certainly have had a different outcome.

So you are standing on your position that it is historical fact that the South wanted to conquer the North. Man you really are stuck on stupid.

If DC falls in 1863 then the US capital is moved North like most Yankees wanted to do in 1861 anyway. The South's only hope was to take it to the North for political reasons, to get GB to join on the South side and break the blockade. European recognition may have saved the South.

What historical reference are you citing when you say it is fact that the South wanted to conquer the North? How could a Nation of 9 million conquer and occupy a nation of 30 million? There was never any threat of that EVER. Even Southerners knew that.

[Mears]

bfll

[NicknamedBob]

"The South took up arms to preserve slavery ..."

If your question is a lie, its answer cannot be the truth.

[central_va]

President Jefferson Davis proclaimed his strategy to be one of "offensive-defensive." The strategy in fact was one of defending all resources, stockpiling supplies and taking the offensive when the supply situation warranted or the opportunity was provided by the enemy. With the exception of a few notable offensive forays his strategy would evolve into one of passive defense. Whether intentional or not President Davis, with his statement on strategy, acknowledged two of the eminent military theorists of the nineteenth century. There can be no doubt that Prussian General Carl Von Clausewitz or French General Antoine Jomini would not have endorsed the evolved defensive strategy of the Confederacy. They agreed that a passive defense was doomed to defeat.​

[jmacusa]

The South choose to violently succeed from the union and lost. Anything else after that fact is bullsh!t.

[jmacusa]

I’ve never heard anything so stupid in all my life. Read The Constitution of The Confederacy.

[NicknamedBob]

"I’ve never heard anything so stupid in all my life."

Oh I'm sure you must have. You had to come by your accumulation somehow.

[jmacusa]

Nah, I’m fine pal. It’s you that takes the cake. Honest to God. The South lost the war. You know that , right? You know what that makes them? Losers. You know what that makes people who carry the torch of “The Lost Cause’’? Losers.