Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Thomas Jackson, 'Stonewall".

Ahh! François deLaHarpe! Now there's an adventure. I quoted two of his stories not too long ago here on the campfire!! Establishes and runs a trading post in Spanish Texas and the Dons did nothing about it!!! LOL! One of the stories was his dining on unicorn at the Nasoni caddo village where he set up that post! (Actually it was like a small cabin. Mebbe 8x8 poste du terre construction).

Have you ever read du Pages journals??

Okay, enough talk about who was responsible for the slaves being here. Ever who it was, I'd like to kick his ass and tell him to send them back. They may have been needed then, but they're a burden now. So, let's get back on track and discuss the original post.

I have been reading a book by Jefferson Davis......A Short History Of The Confederate States Of America. While there is probably nothing new revealed, it has opened my eyes on a few things, mainly from a political perspective of how the North, Lincoln, and the Republicans acted, and how ruthless they were. But, Davis gives accounts of the major battles, and even though I knew the South never had the manpower that the North did, I'd never really realized just how disparaging those numbers were. It was common for the South to be outnumbered 2-1, and even three or four to one in a lot of battles. Yet, they won many of them, or fought the Yankees to a standstill in others. That says a lot for the Confederate army and it's leaders.

Davis commented that the death of Jackson hurt the South, because he and Lee were such a good team. Stonewall got results, and had an uncanny ability to make his attacks in the right place, at the right time. I believe that had he lived, it is very possible that the outcome of some of the battles fought after his death, would have had a different outcome. I'm not saying the South would have won the war, because the North had such a huge advantage in everything, and time was on their side.

The South could have won that war.
Look at how we won the Revolution. England was the economic superpower of the world. The English navy ruled the waves.
England won many of the big battles.
But, the stubborn colonists refused to quit and just wore England down, they got sick of fighting and gave up.

The South could have done it and nearly did, in the fall of '64 Lincoln was convinced that he would lose the election and his successor would make peace.
Just a couple more victories and the South could have pulled it off.

Shelby Foote----An American Historian----wrote a 3 volume history of the Civil War. He said the South never had a chance of winning the war. He said the North fought with one arm tied behinds it's back. Too many men, too much industry, South never had a chance.

We tend to forget that the American Revolution was mostly defensive in nature until France came in on the side of the Americans, after the American victory at Saratoga in 1777. The British had other fires to deal with in Europe, India, and the Caribbean when they finally chose to cut their loses and let the American colonies go.

The South could have won that war.
Look at how we won the Revolution. England was the economic superpower of the world. The English navy ruled the waves.
England won many of the big battles.
But, the stubborn colonists refused to quit and just wore England down, they got sick of fighting and gave up.

The South could have done it and nearly did, in the fall of '64 Lincoln was convinced that he would lose the election and his successor would make peace.
Just a couple more victories and the South could have pulled it off.

This is what I understand to have happened.

The Brits were involved in essentially was a World War, and had more important irons in the fire than the colonies that were to become the U.S..

The best the South could have done was to forestall the North until Lincoln was defeated at the polls, and a new president decided to let the South go. The Rebs were better fighters than their Yankee counterparts, they were fighting on their homeland for the most part, the Southern leadership was better, their Calvary was superior.......but they simply did not have the manpower or the supplies that the North had. That made the difference.