Can We Have A Civil Discussion About The War Between The States ?

SlowwHand · February 9, 2003, 15:33

I'd like to, because I'm interested in the strategy aspects of different battles, and I also know there are several others here with interest and knowledge.

Don't turn this into a pissing contest, please.

I find the battles at Gettysburg and Vicksburg interesting.
Both show why cities come under siege.
Cities are generally located in locations of strategic importance.

Vicksburg was situated on the Mississippi, and allowed supplies to remain flowing, even after New Orleans was captured.

Gettysburg, also considered by many to be the turning point in the war, was situated at the juncture of 9 roads.

Supplies and roads are essential.

Boris Godunov · February 9, 2003, 15:35

Start by referring to it properly as the American Civil War, and we can go from there.

Thrawn05 · February 9, 2003, 15:36

*Must resist the temptation of talking about why New Jersey should overthrowing the dictatorship of Pennsylvania*

Inverse Icarus · February 9, 2003, 15:39

we don't need to turn this into a pissing contest, beacuse we all know the union army pissed on the south from across the dixie line.

i'd much rather have a discussion of what would have ahppened if the union lost, and conceeded that the south was it's own nation. i wonder what kind of inbred backwater agricultural sh*thole you'd be now, without us

Velociryx · February 9, 2003, 15:41

Gettysburg = a total botch job for the South. Coulda gone down in the books as a sharp skirmish ending on day one, and had Stonewall Jackson been at Lee's side, it almost assuredly would have. He'd have charged the hill south of Gettysburg, ripped the already teetering and demoralized Union forces there a new arse, and sent them fleeing down the road south, headlong into their own forces advancing north, which would have caused a godawful traffic jam. Without Stuart in hand, Lee's next move would likely have been to use the confusion to withdraw, perhaps hammering a parting shot home.

Good press for the south, and the Confederate Army lives to fight another day.

-=Vel=-

Thrawn05 · February 9, 2003, 15:42

QUOTE:
_____________________________________
Originally posted by UberKruX
we don't need to turn this into a pissing contest, beacuse we all know the union army pissed on the south from across the dixie line.

i'd much rather have a discussion of what would have ahppened if the union lost, and conceeded that the south was it's own nation. i wonder what kind of inbred backwater agricultural sh*thole you'd be now, without us

_____________________________________

I read a book about what if the south won, AND in the 1940's sided with the axis in WW2. Very good book, forgot the title though.

Sprayber · February 9, 2003, 15:52

For those interested take a look at this book by William C Davis.

Look Away - History Of the Confederate States of America

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...er#reader-link

It goes into the little taught history of the political aspects of cofederacy from the early days of seccession to the last days of the war. It also covers local politics of the states as well. Its a wonderful book that some of you guys would enjoy, none of which the Northern dominated history has taught. Battles are only of secondary importance to this book and only serve as a backdrop. Its not an attempt to absolve the south and in the end he paints a much more accurate picture than the simple black and white one that many Northerners and Southerns have given the Civil War.

Another of his books that covers in depth the time from Lincolns presidential victory to the formal seccession of the states. IT goes almost day by day in the forming of the Confederate Goverment. Most may not know that the new goverment virtually copied the US constitution when making it´s own.

A Government of Our Own- The Making Of The Confederacy

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...2411?vi=glance

Ramo · February 9, 2003, 16:05

If JEB Stuart destroyed the supply train he raided instead of trying to hold it, Gettysburg would've been lost. Of course, that wouldn't have meant that the South would win the war. It had already been lost at Antietam, their last shot at British and French intervention.

David Floyd · February 9, 2003, 16:19

Quote:

I read a book about what if the south won, AND in the 1940's sided with the axis in WW2. Very good book, forgot the title though.

No offense, but that's a pretty silly premise - it requires not only WW1 going the same way or even happening as it did historically (extremely unlikely), but also requires the CSA to turna gainst the two countries who likely saved it - France and Britain. Slavery would likely have been abolished by the 1940s anyway, meaning that the CSA would have in NO WAY resembled Nazi Germany in terms of civil rights and political freedom.

And by the way, the proper name for the war is the War of Northern Aggression.

chequita guevara · February 9, 2003, 16:37

You mean the War of Southern Treason?

Boris Godunov · February 9, 2003, 17:40

IIRC, Gettysburg wasn't of any particular strategic importance, at least not on the level of Vicksburg. Gettysburg just happened to be where the Union was able to meet Lee's army, and Lee (foolishly) chose to remain and fight there rather than retreating to find better ground to defend. But there was no "seige" of the city, as such, and it wasn't more than a point the CSA planned to pass through in the effort to cut off the Northern army and surround Washington.

Sava · February 9, 2003, 17:41

I wonder if Floyd is against the removal of Hitler in WW2.

chairmanmeow · February 9, 2003, 22:52

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

Slavery would likely have been abolished by the 1940s anyway, meaning that the CSA would have in NO WAY resembled Nazi Germany in terms of civil rights and political freedom.

IIRC, the Confederacy abolished slavery shortly before surrendering in 1865. Although, of what I've read, if they had done so earlier, say in 1862 or '63, they could have gotten England to join the war, and may have won.

David Floyd · February 9, 2003, 22:53

Quote:

I wonder if Floyd is against the removal of Hitler in WW2.

If you're asking if I oppose US involvement, then certainly I oppose it.

Boris Godunov · February 9, 2003, 22:55

Quote:

Originally posted by chairmanmeow

IIRC, the Confederacy abolished slavery shortly before surrendering in 1865. Although, of what I've read, if they had done so earlier, say in 1862 or '63, they could have gotten England to join the war, and may have won.

I don't believe that is true. Lee had suggested to Davis that the CSA grant freedom to slaves willing to fight in the army against the Union, but Davis shot it down, as it would go against everything on which they had founded the Confederacy.

Boris Godunov · February 9, 2003, 22:56

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

If you're asking if I oppose US involvement, then certainly I oppose it.

Hard not to be involved in a war where they declare war on you first...

David Floyd · February 9, 2003, 22:57

No it isn't - don't attack Uboats and radio the positions of Uboats to the British and escort British/Canadian convoys.

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2003, 22:58

Quote:

IIRC, the Confederacy abolished slavery shortly before surrendering in 1865.

I have difficulty believing this.

Boris Godunov · February 9, 2003, 22:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

IIRC, the Confederacy abolished slavery shortly before surrendering in 1865.

I have difficulty believing this.

And you'd be right!

But now stop believing that silly pumpernickel myth!

chairmanmeow · February 9, 2003, 23:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

I don't believe that is true. Lee had suggested to Davis that the CSA grant freedom to slaves willing to fight in the army against the Union, but Davis shot it down, as it would go against everything on which they had founded the Confederacy.

I know it never would have happened, since one of the main reasons the South seceded was slavery, but had they listened to Lee, their chances of winning would be higher, because they would take away the issue that Lincoln used to prevent European intervention in the war.

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2003, 23:03

Quote:

But now stop believing that silly pumpernickel myth!

I believe it is just as valid as the more crude myth.

Boris Godunov · February 9, 2003, 23:03

Quote:

Originally posted by chairmanmeow
I know it never would have happened, since one of the main reasons the South seceded was slavery, but had they listened to Lee, their chances of winning would be higher, because they would take away the issue that Lincoln used to prevent European intervention in the war.

It would have been a negligible factor in the outcome, especially by that point in the war.

Boris Godunov · February 9, 2003, 23:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

But now stop believing that silly pumpernickel myth!

I believe it is just as valid as the more crude myth.

Except that the "crude" myth is given as the official origin of the word in Webster's and other dictionaries, while the French myth is unmentioned.

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2003, 23:12

Quote:

Except that the "crude" myth is given as the official origin of the word in Webster's and other dictionaries

Which means soooo much

. Those dictionaries would also like you to classify France as a socialist country.

H Tower · February 9, 2003, 23:14

Quote:

Originally posted by chairmanmeow

I know it never would have happened, since one of the main reasons the South seceded was slavery, but had they listened to Lee, their chances of winning would be higher, because they would take away the issue that Lincoln used to prevent European intervention in the war.

funny, i always thought the reason the sourthern states left was because they were sick of a national government running roughshod on states' rights.

And to answer sloww's original question: probably not

Boris Godunov · February 9, 2003, 23:19

Quote:

Originally posted by H Tower
funny, i always thought the reason the sourthern states left was because they were sick of a national government running roughshod on states' rights.

Yeah, well, now you know better.

DuncanK · February 9, 2003, 23:37

Maybe you guys can tell me what is so interesting about the Civil War. I never understood it.

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2003, 23:39

Quote:

Maybe you guys can tell me what is so interesting about the Civil War. I never understood it.

What's not interesting about it? Brother against Brother. Perhaps the first modern war. Ripped apart the US and defines the present more than any other conflict in US history (even the American Revolution pales).

Lefty Scaevola · February 9, 2003, 23:48

I have one of the original printing (1867) of the first major history of the war, "The Lost Cause". Having struck first at the history gave the South advantage unusual to a loser in a war in its retelling.

AnnC · February 10, 2003, 00:20

Here's an interesting question: What if Jefferson Davis (and Pierre Beauregard) had decided not to fire on Fort Sumter? I.e. what if they'd just left the Federals there and perhaps built a fort right across the water on Morris Island to keep an eye on them?

Would Lincoln have been able to convince the US Congress to go to war against the South in circumstances where the South had not initiated any kind of military action?