Examining The South’s Chances To Win The Civil War

[bodecea]

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.

Like Sherman said...War is hell

Sherman did more to save future lives than Lee did...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sherman helped to build a better world than Lee ever could.

 

[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.

Like Sherman said...War is hell

Sherman did more to save future lives than Lee did...

He broke their will to fight

Just like the South was trying to do to the north

 

[rightwinger]

Sherman helped to build a better world than Lee ever could.

Lee tried to build a slave nation

 

[Picaro]

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

Lincoln outplayed the Southern states.

Lincoln was a corrupt military dictator and murdering sociopath, your kind of leader. His Generals went on to even greater fame as mass murderers of women and children, also your kind of leaders. Most Democrats gush over them all the time, especially in threads like this one..

 

[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.

Revisionist bullshit

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

More rubbish, Like I said already, there is zero evidence for your fake revisionism. Even the famous Nazi racists Mike Wallace and Edwin Burroughs cover it some detail in their Pulitzer Prize winning history Gotham, complete with names, dates, and extensive bibliography, just for one widely available source, a source with credibility, unlike you and Jake and the other racist Democrats who keep trying to pretend you had anything to do with freeing anybody; you're not even active in the modern anti-slavery movements, too chickenshit and wimpy for that sort of thing in real life.

 

[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

More rubbish, Like I said already, there is zero evidence for your fake revisionism. Even the famous Nazi racists Mike Wallace and Edwin Burroughs cover it some detail in their Pulitzer Prize winning history Gotham, complete with names, dates, and extensive bibliography, just for one widely available source, a source with credibility, unlike you and Jake and the other racist Democrats who keep trying to pretend you had anything to do with freeing anybody; you're not even active in the modern anti-slavery movements, too chickenshit and wimpy for that sort of thing in real life.

Nonsense

NY would be the last state to leave the union

They WERE the union

 

[Picaro]

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

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

More rubbish, Like I said already, there is zero evidence for your fake revisionism. Even the famous Nazi racists Mike Wallace and Edwin Burroughs cover it some detail in their Pulitzer Prize winning history Gotham, complete with names, dates, and extensive bibliography, just for one widely available source, a source with credibility, unlike you and Jake and the other racist Democrats who keep trying to pretend you had anything to do with freeing anybody; you're not even active in the modern anti-slavery movements, too chickenshit and wimpy for that sort of thing in real life.

Nonsense

NY would be the last state to leave the union

They WERE the union

Keep knocking down strawmen; people who read my posts know what I said: New York City.

Now we're going to see the usual 20+ posts of 'I Touched You Last!!!' kiddie crap with zero content like the one quoted here, hoping to bury the thread with bullshit, the usual loser tactic from Democrat apologists. Jake as usual will join with his inane one liners for another 10 to 50 posts. Nobody will post any credible evidence refuting what I said, though. That's because there isn't any, and they know it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rightwinger has had little difficulty knocking down the nonsense arguments raised by Picaro.

 

[Picaro]

Rightwinger has had little difficulty knocking down the nonsense arguments raised by Picaro.

ah, Jake has 9 to 49 more vacant posts to go now. We can have a lottery on how many.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The Union used to be voluntary, as the Framers intended, before the Hamiltonian Abraham Lincoln came along. Of course, with the Civil War, that principle was destroyed.

 

[rightwinger]

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

More rubbish, Like I said already, there is zero evidence for your fake revisionism. Even the famous Nazi racists Mike Wallace and Edwin Burroughs cover it some detail in their Pulitzer Prize winning history Gotham, complete with names, dates, and extensive bibliography, just for one widely available source, a source with credibility, unlike you and Jake and the other racist Democrats who keep trying to pretend you had anything to do with freeing anybody; you're not even active in the modern anti-slavery movements, too chickenshit and wimpy for that sort of thing in real life.

Nonsense

NY would be the last state to leave the union

They WERE the union

Keep knocking down strawmen; people who read my posts know what I said: New York City.

Now we're going to see the usual 20+ posts of 'I Touched You Last!!!' kiddie crap with zero content like the one quoted here, hoping to bury the thread with bullshit, the usual loser tactic from Democrat apologists. Jake as usual will join with his inane one liners for another 10 to 50 posts. Nobody will post any credible evidence refuting what I said, though. That's because there isn't any, and they know it.

Washington DC might just as well leave the Union

Washington was the political capitol of the US, NYC was the financial capitol

 

[rightwinger]

The Union used to be voluntary, as the Framers intended, before the Hamiltonian Abraham Lincoln came along. Of course, with the Civil War, that principle was destroyed.

Voluntary to join, not voluntary to jump in and out as you please

The founders had specific conditions for joining the union.......none for leaving

 

[JakeStarkey]

The union was voluntary to join, yes; to leave, no.

 

[rightwinger]

The union was voluntary to join, yes; to leave, no.

It isn’t like adding ingredients to a stew
Once they are added, they become part of the whole meal

Once a state joins the union, they gain its benefits, assume national debt, receive investments from the country and its citizens are now AMERICANS

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once the states started seceding, the US should have sent hunter-killer teams after the leading secessionists.

They were their version of terrorist beyond the normal reach of the US: thus, they should have been eliminated as soon as possible by any means possible.

 

[Flash]

The only chance the South had to prevail was an early victory forcing the filthy ass Union to sue for peace. Logistics was against them for any extended engagement.

Historians will disagree on the timing of a decisive campaign but probably the best chance was if the South could have followed up the victory at Bull Run and marched on the DC and captured the seat of the Federal government.

Others think a more decisive victory at Chancellorsville and not losing Jackson could have led to the Union calling it quits.

By the time Gettysburg took place all was lost for the South because of the losses in the West.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, a Manassas victory followed by a supplied, organized effort to take DC and force a truce then a peace.

 

[rightwinger]

The only chance the South had to prevail was an early victory forcing the filthy ass Union to sue for peace. Logistics was against them for any extended engagement.

Historians will disagree on the timing of a decisive campaign but probably the best chance was if the South could have followed up the victory at Bull Run and marched on the DC and captured the seat of the Federal government.

Others think a more decisive victory at Chancellorsville and not losing Jackson could have led to the Union calling it quits.

By the time Gettysburg took place all was lost for the South because of the losses in the West.

The South came close to victory at Gettysburg
Hesitation at key points in the battle cost them victory. If Stonewall Jackson had been there instead of Ewell, they could have won on day 2

Lee’s Army running unchecked through Pennsylvania could have forced the North to sue for peace

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't think so, rw.

Meade would have fallen back toward Baltimore and DC, keeping his Army in front of Lee.

Lee's army was simply too big to supply rampaging the country side.

And then the civilian 'pot shotting' at CSA outliers as happened before the battle would have grown to tens of thousands of civilians with guns marching to the 'sound of battle' to pick off a Southerner.