Examining The South’s Chances To Win The Civil War

[DOTR]

Also the South was intensly convinced of the rightness of their position and believed fully in their system of government.
Did they not have this right?

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

 

[PoliticalChic]

The South never thought they could "win the war" against the industrial might of the North. In fact Lincoln was so confident that he disregarded the impact of potential hostilities with the profoundly ignorant assumption that the war would be over by the end of the summer. "Historians" love to claim that Lincoln preserved the Union but the opposite is true. The Union fell apart under his watch and it cost half a million lives to put it back together. Lincoln should have cajoled and promised and made bargains and kissed the asses of the South Carolina fools to avoid bloodshed if that's what it took but he didn't do it. The industrial revolution was beginning and slavery was on it's way out. If the Union could have been preserved for another couple of years it would have prevented the carnage and bigotry we still live with a hundred and fifty years later.

"The South never thought they could "win the war" against the industrial might of the North."


Actually they did believe they could win the war.

As I said earlier, they counted on two allies.




6. First…..the powerful ally the South thought they’d have? The one with the greatest navy in the world.

a. 75% of the world's cotton, and up to 84% of Britain's, came from the South's cotton fields. The Cotton Economy in the South FREE The Cotton Economy in the South information Encyclopedia.com Find The Cotton Economy in the South research

b. In Britain's industrial heartland, where all but 500 of the country's 2,650 cotton factories, employing 440 000 people, were located, and almost all of the cotton came from the Southern United States. A history of the Lancashire cotton mills

c. "In 1861 the London Times estimated that one fifth of the British population was dependent, directly or indirectly, on the success of the cotton districts." "Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.72


d. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States. ,” Gavin Mortimer, p.70-71





7. One 'ally' let them down:
London Times: "....Southern rights are now more clearly understood, and in any case since war, though greatly to be regretted, was now at hand, it was England's business to keep strictly out of it and to maintain neutrality."
May 9, 1861


On May 14th, Queen Victoria issued Britain's "Proclamation of Neutrality." Theproclamation was avidly reported in the American press, with Harper's Weeklysummarizing it in its edition of June 8.

"THE proclamation of the Queen has been issued by the Privy Council at Whitehall, warning all British subjects from interfering, at their peril, with either party in the American conflict, or giving aid and comfort in any way, by personal service and supplying munitions of war, to either party. The proclamation announces it as the intention of the British Government to preserve the strictest neutrality in the contest between the Government of the United States and the Government of those States calling themselves the Confederate States of America."
Civil War News





But…..the Southern slavers did and do have one firm ally.

The ‘fifth column traitors’ known as the Democrat Party.....whether Southern Democrats, or Northern Democrats.....they all supported slavery.

It depends on your definition of "winning". Only a fool would buy into the myth that the South thought it could conquer the North. The South's concept of winning was a truce and an agreement that they could leave the Union. The North had at least one general who thought he was "God's terrible swift sword". Sherman would have been hanged in the 20th century for intentionally setting fire to a city full of wounded men and women and children. Old drunken U.S. Grant would probably have shared a cell.

Whitey, it was explained in detail in post #9.
They had a clear argument that Britain needed their cotton, and losing it would mean financial ruin for the Island Empire.



Senator James Henry Hammond, in what became known as the "Cotton is King" speech:

" Without firing a gun, without drawing a sword, should they make war on us we could bring the whole world to our feet.

The South is perfectly competent to go on, one, two, or three years without planting a seed of cotton. I believe that if she was to plant but half her cotton, for three years to come, it would be an immense advantage to her. I am not so sure but that after three years' entire abstinence she would come out stronger than ever she was before, and better prepared to enter afresh upon her great career of enterprise.

What would happen if no cotton was furnished for three years? I will not stop to depict what every one can imagine, but this is certain: England would topple headlong and carry the whole civilized world with her, save the South.No, you dare not make war on cotton. No power on earth dares to make war upon it. Cotton is king." James Henry Hammond Cotton is King




That was 1858. The Southern elite already thought they had an ace up their sleeve with which to coax Britain.

. Senator Hammond's South Carolina was the first state to respond to Lincoln's election (Novermber 6, 1860): it called a convention on whether to secede....the vote was announced on December 20, 1860: 169-0 to secede.

London Times: "there is nothing in all the dark caves of human passion so cruel and deadly as the hatred the South Carolinians profess for the Yankees."
May 28, 1861






As you put it, "The South's concept of winning was a truce and an agreement that they could leave the Union."

That is exactly what winning means.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Also the South was intensly convinced of the rightness of their position and believed fully in their system of government.
Did they not have this right?

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

"Did they not have this right?"


No, they didn't.


1. A review of many of the actions of the Democrat Party throughout the history of this nation leads on to conclude that Progressives/Democrats seem to have ‘buyers remorse’ at having ratified the Constitution.

Well, check this out-The founding documents of America include these two profound phrases:

All men are created equal

And

Consent of the governed


2.Yet, after signing on to documents that created a sovereign and unique nation, based on the two phrases above, the major political party has worked tirelessly to maintain slavery, and, now, endorses open border policies that would destroy America as a free and autonomous nation.

The Democrat Party has been steadfast as the main ally slavers have had in their ongoing battle against America.

 

[rightwinger]

Sadly, Political Chic has historical views based on conspiracy theories and revisionist history

While the OP allows for some interesting historical discussion, the OP is incapable of participating

 

[rightwinger]

The South never thought they could "win the war" against the industrial might of the North. In fact Lincoln was so confident that he disregarded the impact of potential hostilities with the profoundly ignorant assumption that the war would be over by the end of the summer. "Historians" love to claim that Lincoln preserved the Union but the opposite is true. The Union fell apart under his watch and it cost half a million lives to put it back together. Lincoln should have cajoled and promised and made bargains and kissed the asses of the South Carolina fools to avoid bloodshed if that's what it took but he didn't do it. The industrial revolution was beginning and slavery was on it's way out. If the Union could have been preserved for another couple of years it would have prevented the carnage and bigotry we still live with a hundred and fifty years later.

"The South never thought they could "win the war" against the industrial might of the North."


Actually they did believe they could win the war.

As I said earlier, they counted on two allies.




6. First…..the powerful ally the South thought they’d have? The one with the greatest navy in the world.

a. 75% of the world's cotton, and up to 84% of Britain's, came from the South's cotton fields. The Cotton Economy in the South FREE The Cotton Economy in the South information Encyclopedia.com Find The Cotton Economy in the South research

b. In Britain's industrial heartland, where all but 500 of the country's 2,650 cotton factories, employing 440 000 people, were located, and almost all of the cotton came from the Southern United States. A history of the Lancashire cotton mills

c. "In 1861 the London Times estimated that one fifth of the British population was dependent, directly or indirectly, on the success of the cotton districts." "Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.72


d. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States. ,” Gavin Mortimer, p.70-71





7. One 'ally' let them down:
London Times: "....Southern rights are now more clearly understood, and in any case since war, though greatly to be regretted, was now at hand, it was England's business to keep strictly out of it and to maintain neutrality."
May 9, 1861


On May 14th, Queen Victoria issued Britain's "Proclamation of Neutrality." Theproclamation was avidly reported in the American press, with Harper's Weeklysummarizing it in its edition of June 8.

"THE proclamation of the Queen has been issued by the Privy Council at Whitehall, warning all British subjects from interfering, at their peril, with either party in the American conflict, or giving aid and comfort in any way, by personal service and supplying munitions of war, to either party. The proclamation announces it as the intention of the British Government to preserve the strictest neutrality in the contest between the Government of the United States and the Government of those States calling themselves the Confederate States of America."
Civil War News





But…..the Southern slavers did and do have one firm ally.

The ‘fifth column traitors’ known as the Democrat Party.....whether Southern Democrats, or Northern Democrats.....they all supported slavery.

It depends on your definition of "winning". Only a fool would buy into the myth that the South thought it could conquer the North. The South's concept of winning was a truce and an agreement that they could leave the Union. The North had at least one general who thought he was "God's terrible swift sword". Sherman would have been hanged in the 20th century for intentionally setting fire to a city full of wounded men and women and children. Old drunken U.S. Grant would probably have shared a cell.

Whitey, it was explained in detail in post #9.
They had a clear argument that Britain needed their cotton, and losing it would mean financial ruin for the Island Empire.



Senator James Henry Hammond, in what became known as the "Cotton is King" speech:

" Without firing a gun, without drawing a sword, should they make war on us we could bring the whole world to our feet.

The South is perfectly competent to go on, one, two, or three years without planting a seed of cotton. I believe that if she was to plant but half her cotton, for three years to come, it would be an immense advantage to her. I am not so sure but that after three years' entire abstinence she would come out stronger than ever she was before, and better prepared to enter afresh upon her great career of enterprise.

What would happen if no cotton was furnished for three years? I will not stop to depict what every one can imagine, but this is certain: England would topple headlong and carry the whole civilized world with her, save the South.No, you dare not make war on cotton. No power on earth dares to make war upon it. Cotton is king." James Henry Hammond Cotton is King




That was 1858. The Southern elite already thought they had an ace up their sleeve with which to coax Britain.

. Senator Hammond's South Carolina was the first state to respond to Lincoln's election (Novermber 6, 1860): it called a convention on whether to secede....the vote was announced on December 20, 1860: 169-0 to secede.

London Times: "there is nothing in all the dark caves of human passion so cruel and deadly as the hatred the South Carolinians profess for the Yankees."
May 28, 1861






As you put it, "The South's concept of winning was a truce and an agreement that they could leave the Union."

That is exactly what winning means.

Boy, was he ever wrong

 

[rightwinger]

So….what made the South imagine that they could win???

Consider the fact that the South didnt feel like it had a choice. It felt beleaguered on all sides already. the South did imagine it could win but, more importantly, it felt like it had no choice.

It had many choices
Not all of the choices allowed them to continue slavery

 

[PoliticalChic]

13. Hidden by the Democrat control of government schools, is the fact that Democrats not only supported human bondage, and began a war to preserve slavery……

…..but it was not a Southern movement.
Democrats in the North were of the very same perspective: slavery now, slavery forever.



Northern Democrats did everything they could to resist…..a term that has become a current Democrat motto……but, after the Civil War, in the battle to pass the 13th amendment to abolish slavery……


….only 16 of the 80 Northern Democrats voted for the amendment.


“The measure passed by the narrowest of margins, with eight members abstaining. Sixteen Democrats, all but two lame ducks, joined the full slate of Republicans in approving the measure.” Congress Passes 13th Amendment, 150 Years Ago




The War to End Slavery was not North vs South…..it was Republicans vs Democrats.

 

[PoliticalChic]

BTW.....on the 14th amendment....equal rights

and the 15th amendment....right to vote


Guess how the Democrats in the House and the Senate voted.....that would be Northern Democrats, as there were no Southern Democrats there....


Did you guess zero?

Right answer.


Southern or Northern Democrats.....same view on blacks.....

...same view Bill Clinton has.
"Bill Clinton on Obama: 'A Few Years Ago, This Guy Would Have Been Carrying Our Bags'"
Bill Clinton on Obama: 'A Few Years Ago, This Guy Would Have Been Carrying Our Bags'

 

[Picaro]

The South had only one chance to win, and that was early victory. It was the 'perfect' laissez faire economy, where every dollar went to where the highest and best returns were, and that was in cotton. They could have had a respectable steel industry, shipping industry, and a lager white population and a more advanced economic base which would have made them at the least much better able to fend off Lincoln's raid, but the easiest money with the highest returns was in cotton, and they forsake everything else. The war lasted as long as it did because of the drunkenness and stupidity on northern Generals and Lincoln's early diversion of some 75,000 Federal troops personally loyal to him into the border slave states to control their ballot boxes, the only thing that saved him in the 1862 elections and the 1864 election as well.

The last and biggest southern states didn't secede until the last minute. The order was Carolina first, when the Morrill Tariff Act and the Homestead Acts were introduced for a vote, followed by 6 more because of Buchanan's attempt to occupy Ft. Sumter and collect duties there, for 7 states, then the last 4, including Virginia, the largest on in April., all for different events, the latter having to do with Lincoln's deliberate provocations against the advice of nearly all of his own Cabinet. The last 4 seceded after Lincoln's informing South Carolina he was going to rein force Sumter, Virginia on April 17. Virginia was important because it wasn't a cotton state and had a more developed economy.

Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, so no, they didn't all secede before Lincoln was President. Nor did they secede over 'Slavery'; the South had already won all the Supreme Court battles over that, and Tainey was still Chief Justice of the SC, too. They seceded because Lincoln wanted to loot the South to subsidize the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states, bankers, and corporations with massive welfare programs that would not benefit the South at all, and he wasn't going to take no for an answer to his robbery demands.

The 'Germany couldn't beat the USSR' rubbish is another myth that has already been knocked down, several times; the British kept Stalin in the war, with early aid, including enough armor units to launch winter offensives that saved Moscow.

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[rightwinger]

The Civil War was about slavery

Period

 

[Picaro]

The OP makes a valiant effort but her twisted views of history are wrong on both parts

Hitler could have very well defeated the Soviets and came very close to victory in Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad. Allied support of the Soviets, instead of the Nazis (like the OP advocates) was essential to victory

Stalin was out of the war without outside aid; that isn't even a debatable point any more, not with the latest research.

As to the South in the Civil War, the OP once again gives a twisted history. Yes, the South could have won a truce, but no, any theory that Northern Democrats were a key to that victory is not supported by historical records

If New York City had seceded with the South and the secessionists in New Jersey had been more active, ditto southern Pennsylvania's, and if Lincoln hadn't seized control of the ballot boxes with his private army in several states, then yes, it would have been possible; he wouldn't have been able to keep up the fighting without Congress and several state govts. But NYC wasn't going to join the South after finding out some of the states were negotiation for direct shipments from Charleston to Europe and bypassing the northern shipping monopoly and banking services, which leaves the rest as a toss up. I go with 'slightly possible'.

 

[Picaro]

The Civil War was about slavery

Period

If it had been, you revisionist apologists would have been able to prove it a long time ago. You can't. Lincoln said it wasn't, the Congressional Record says it wasn't, the op eds in nearly every newspaper in the U.S. said it wasn't. You're left with political speeches, which have no credibility, much like democrats and the media today.

 

[rightwinger]

The OP makes a valiant effort but her twisted views of history are wrong on both parts

Hitler could have very well defeated the Soviets and came very close to victory in Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad. Allied support of the Soviets, instead of the Nazis (like the OP advocates) was essential to victory

Stalin was out of the war without outside aid; that isn't even a debatable point any more, not with the latest research.

As to the South in the Civil War, the OP once again gives a twisted history. Yes, the South could have won a truce, but no, any theory that Northern Democrats were a key to that victory is not supported by historical records

If New York City had seceded with the South and the secessionists in New Jersey had been more active, ditto southern Pennsylvania's, and if Lincoln hadn't seized control of the ballot boxes with his private army in several states, then yes, it would have been possible; he wouldn't have been able to keep up the fighting without Congress and several state govts. But NYC wasn't going to join the South after finding out some of the states were negotiation for direct shipments from Charleston to Europe and bypassing the northern shipping monopoly and banking services, which leaves the rest as a toss up. I go with 'slightly possible'.

No way NY joins the Confederacy
That is a wild theory worthy of PC

 

[JakeStarkey]

When NYC rioted in 1863, it took all of three federal regiments to suppress the violence.

NYC never would have seceded. NJ never would have seceded.

The only true advantage of further secession for the South would have been if KY, MD, and TN had truly seceded to the South and sending a 100 regiments. But . . .

 

[Picaro]

The OP makes a valiant effort but her twisted views of history are wrong on both parts

Hitler could have very well defeated the Soviets and came very close to victory in Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad. Allied support of the Soviets, instead of the Nazis (like the OP advocates) was essential to victory

Stalin was out of the war without outside aid; that isn't even a debatable point any more, not with the latest research.

As to the South in the Civil War, the OP once again gives a twisted history. Yes, the South could have won a truce, but no, any theory that Northern Democrats were a key to that victory is not supported by historical records

If New York City had seceded with the South and the secessionists in New Jersey had been more active, ditto southern Pennsylvania's, and if Lincoln hadn't seized control of the ballot boxes with his private army in several states, then yes, it would have been possible; he wouldn't have been able to keep up the fighting without Congress and several state govts. But NYC wasn't going to join the South after finding out some of the states were negotiation for direct shipments from Charleston to Europe and bypassing the northern shipping monopoly and banking services, which leaves the rest as a toss up. I go with 'slightly possible'.

No way NY joins the Confederacy
That is a wild theory worthy of PC

Rubbish. It was a very close thing, and a very well documented one to boot. You racists just want to keep peddling myths about your fake 'anti-racism; it's just about bashing the South for not voting solid Democrat any more and sucking up to faux northern 'liberalism', with fake 'history' about the North to cover up their own atrocities, like the hundreds of thousands they forced into 'property camps' to die, and their extreme efforts to make sure 'freed' blacks did not stream north after the war, is all. Some 90% stayed right up to 1910, when a few went north, and then many came back by 1916, Few went out West. Then we have all manner of other Fun Facts about the elections of 1862 and 1864, too, to prove it still wasn't about slavery in those elections, either.

All the 'slavery' stuff is about as relevant as Thomas Jefferson's alleged 'anti-slavery'; he wrote a big popular screed about being opposed to it, complete with all kinds of wondrous profundities and stuff,for political opportunistic reasons, then promptly went into the very lucrative slave trade for his business interests, owning over 600 of them at one time, bragging to his friends about his high returns and recommending they get into the business, too. Never freed any , either, outside of a few related to him and his family.

The only 'wild theory' being peddled is yours. Jake doesn't have 'theories', since he doesn't know what those are; he just parrots stuff he's told to.

 

[Picaro]

When NYC rioted in 1863, it took all of three federal regiments to suppress the violence.

NYC never would have seceded. NJ never would have seceded.

The only true advantage of further secession for the South would have been if KY, MD, and TN had truly seceded to the South and sending a 100 regiments. But . . .

But Lincoln occupied those and other states with his own private army and then controlled the elections in those states.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you for admitting that the South had very little chance to win the CW.

Lincoln outplayed the Southern states.

 

[rightwinger]

The OP makes a valiant effort but her twisted views of history are wrong on both parts

Hitler could have very well defeated the Soviets and came very close to victory in Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad. Allied support of the Soviets, instead of the Nazis (like the OP advocates) was essential to victory

Stalin was out of the war without outside aid; that isn't even a debatable point any more, not with the latest research.

As to the South in the Civil War, the OP once again gives a twisted history. Yes, the South could have won a truce, but no, any theory that Northern Democrats were a key to that victory is not supported by historical records

If New York City had seceded with the South and the secessionists in New Jersey had been more active, ditto southern Pennsylvania's, and if Lincoln hadn't seized control of the ballot boxes with his private army in several states, then yes, it would have been possible; he wouldn't have been able to keep up the fighting without Congress and several state govts. But NYC wasn't going to join the South after finding out some of the states were negotiation for direct shipments from Charleston to Europe and bypassing the northern shipping monopoly and banking services, which leaves the rest as a toss up. I go with 'slightly possible'.

No way NY joins the Confederacy
That is a wild theory worthy of PC

Rubbish. It was a very close thing, and a very well documented one to boot. You racists just want to keep peddling myths about your fake 'anti-racism; it's just about bashing the South for not voting solid Democrat any more and sucking up to faux northern 'liberalism', with fake 'history' about the North to cover up their own atrocities, like the hundreds of thousands they forced into 'property camps' to die, and their extreme efforts to make sure 'freed' blacks did not stream north after the war, is all. Some 90% stayed right up to 1910, when a few went north, and then many came back by 1916, Few went out West. Then we have all manner of other Fun Facts about the elections of 1862 and 1864, too, to prove it still wasn't about slavery in those elections, either.

All the 'slavery' stuff is about as relevant as Thomas Jefferson's alleged 'anti-slavery'; he wrote a big popular screed about being opposed to it, complete with all kinds of wondrous profundities and stuff,for political opportunistic reasons, then promptly went into the very lucrative slave trade for his business interests, owning over 600 of them at one time, bragging to his friends about his high returns and recommending they get into the business, too. Never freed any , either, outside of a few related to him and his family.

The only 'wild theory' being peddled is yours. Jake doesn't have 'theories', since he doesn't know what those are; he just parrots stuff he's told to.

Revisionist bullshit

New York was the financial backbone of the US
No way were they going to side with an agrarian slave nation

 

[rightwinger]

Thank you for admitting that the South had very little chance to win the CW.

Lincoln outplayed the Southern states.

The Southern states overplayed a weak hand
They thought they had the world by the balls with their cotton

They didn’t