Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire OMG Another Civil War Thread!

I have a couple of thoughts related to the War Between the States brought on by the thread about N.B. Forrest, and I figured the discussion deserves its own thread.
First off, I'm not a fan of Lincoln. I believe Lincoln brought on the war without trying to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict. He painted the south into a corner at Sumter, forcing them to seem the aggressor with no attempt to avert it. Remember, there were several southern states who hadn't seceded, but were waiting to see what was gonna happen.
Who knows, maybe with some statesmanship and some compromise, war might have been avoided.
With that said, I believe that Booths shot at Ford's Theater hurt the south far more than Sherman's March. With Lincoln gone, the radical republicans forced their idea of "reconstruction" on the south, which was far worse than what Lincoln had planned.
And while we're talking about Sherman, I believe his "March" prolonged the war, both in 1864, and in the minds of southerners long after.
The Confederate government's power rested on the Confederate Armies. Hood's Army of Tennessee was his rightful objective, not the farms and plantations of Dixie.
Had he pinned Hood between himself and Thomas and Schofield, and afterward reinforced Grant in VA, the war may have ended much sooner.
Thoughts?
7mm

May the best man/team win....

The rest is history.

Governments do what governments do.

The Founding Fathers tried to construct a Constitution that would prevent a large, central government from forming in their consolidation of states. They wanted the enumerated powers of the federal government to be subservient to the powers of the individual states. But it didn't last.

In fact, the federal government started flexing its muscle a decade or so after the Revolution,..which caused the whiskey rebellion.

Out with the old boss,..in with the new.

Lincoln forced the upper south out because he knew nothing of statesmanship.

I speculate from my weak knowledge that the only chance the South had militarily was at first Manassas when Jackson wanted to pursue and obliterate the Unionist army including DC, right then and there. Jackson had the right wisdom from the get go.

The south had the yankees on the ropes at Bull Run and didn't press their advantage. G H W Bush had the Iraquis in the same situation in the first gulf war and pulled the plug. Both of those situations were tactical blunders that cost huge numbers of lives in the long run and shaped the course of history, some of which is still happening. Patton wanted to re-arm the Germans and go after Russia. I wonder how that might have turned out?
Jerry

Uhhh....

It was inevitable that somewhere along the way, the power that had been assumed by the federal government would be challenged. That's where the "Civil War" came from. The slavery issue is just the boogeyman that the federal government used to push the issue.

Good read on the matter.

http://www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml

excerpt: But reading it all is eye opening.

To sum up this little constitutional history. The history of the Constitution is the story of its inversion. The original understanding of the Constitution has been reversed. The Constitution creates a presumption against any power not plainly delegated to the federal government and a corresponding presumption in favor of the rights and powers of the states and the people. But we now have a sloppy presumption in favor of federal power. Most people assume the federal government can do anything it isn’t plainly forbidden to do.

It is very easy to second guess what "might" have happened, be it a war, or anything else we're discussing. Had I bought a lottery ticket at the right time, I "might" be living on easy street. Had I been on a certain road at a certain time, I might have been in a wreck, and not be here today.

However, it's fun to speculate.

Had the south won the war they "might" look like Mexico today.

First, I am a fan of Lincoln and born in the same state. Up river from Springfield. Finished high school in Wisconsin.
Lincoln did try to compromise and avoid civil war. He asked for compromise in his first Inaugural address.
He told the South to keep their slaves. He was more willing to a slow and gradual abolition to avoid war.
After the war Lincoln wanted to give free land out west to former slaves. But Booth put the stop to that.

But there was to be no compromise over firing on our flag. You can not that and not pay a price.

Or South Africa, or Haiti after their successful slave revolt in 1804.

The Confederate Army after First Bull Run was every bit as disorganized and I dare say scattered as the Federals were. There was no more chance of a "March on Washington" as there was of a moon landing.
Both Armies were but armed mobs at that point in the war.
I don't believe the AoNV really ever had a chance to win the war.
By the fall of 1862, it was already lost in the west.
Lee put off the inevitable, but the war was lost on the rivers of the west.
7mm

No "might" or "maybe" about it. They'd have been worse.

Why are southerners still hung up on the Civil War?

No disrespect intended.

Shelby Foot who spent 20 years writing the "Civil War Series" said the only way to settle the issue of slavery was with armed conflict.

We kicked some yankee butt as long as we thought they were after our women. Once we figured out what they really wanted, we kinda lost interest!

Anybody who thinks the South lost the war needs to visit Chicago,...Baltimore, or Detroit,...maybe Camden New Jersey.

It not a matter of "South vs. North" to me. It's what it caused the federal government to become. It's the loss of autonomy,..the loss of freedom.

And all of that combined today equals the loss of the Nation.

I guess it had to happen, however. There can't be a government as powerful as the U.S. government without it becoming corrupt and tyrannical.

Like I said,...governments do what governments do.

The south was as third world up until WW2 as Mexico is today in defeat. I doubt she would have been any worse off in victory.

I think slavery would have ended by 1900ish with the invention of mechanical farm implements. Housing and feeding a bunch of slaves would have no longer made any sense. Plus it would have been another generation of living under the stigma of being the only part of the western world that practiced slavery.

The south's best chance to win independence was to get a foreign ally or get the Yankees to give up. Had they won at Gettysburg it could have gone either way.......Lincoln may not have been re-elected and President McClellan would have sued for peace. Might have won at Gettysburg if they had not accidentally killed General Jackson. Even better, they should have fought guerilla style like their grandfathers did in the American Revolution. Then they would have been in the position to play defense on their home turf.

Good chance the states would have re-united at some point last century.

My "fun speculations".