The American Civil War.

[The Whale]

Lets talk about it.

I'll start off by saying that the south beat its self and that Lee was the best Geniral in the war.... Had he not lost Jackson the south may vary well have won the war.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Lets talk about it.

I'll start off by saying that the south beat its self and that Lee was the best Geniral in the war.... Had he not lost Jackson the south may vary well have won the war.

OK mate, whilst that's a nice (albeit unsupported) hypothesis, can you please give us a starting point which lays out you argument and proposition, as the above is just an opinion?

We need:

1). How do you support that view - dates, battles, synopses, analyses and outcomes of events and your understanding of the key attributes/failings of the main protagonists (i.e. Lee & Jackson)? You might want to toss in an overview of the political aspirations and problems faced of the two respective presidents of the Confederacy and the Union.

2). What events support your proposition?

3). In which way did "the south beat itself" - what argument or information can you offer which supports your view?


If you can open with a supported proposition, you've every chance of others wanting to join in the debate.

[yesfannh]

I think the South, being that it was mostly built around agriculture,was really doomed to lose the war from the outset. The North, with it's industrial base was more able to maintain a longer more costly war. The South also was built around slavery and once Emancipation was proclaimed...all that "free" labor in the South vanished. The North's war machine never really was threatend by Southern armies where as the North destroyed much of the South's infrastructure. Good topic Whale!!

[Olorin]

The slaves weren't really freed until each southern state was defeated. Until that point, the Emancipation was just a noble-sounding piece of paper.

[yesfannh]

The slaves weren't really freed until each southern state was defeated. Until that point, the Emancipation was just a noble-sounding piece of paper.

Perhaps, in time, there may even be a thread on the Slavery topic.

Even though it may have just been a piece of paper it was the ideal of it that had many slaves fleeing the South even before it fell.

[yesanneyes]

We took my son to Gettysburg (First Civil War Memorial) over the weekend, and he was just amazed looking at the battlefields. We went to the museum first, then made our way around the monuments with all the soldiers' names. Wow. There was a feeling in the air.

[The Whale]

I think the South, being that it was mostly built around agriculture,was really doomed to lose the war from the outset. The North, with it's industrial base was more able to maintain a longer more costly war. The South also was built around slavery and once Emancipation was proclaimed...all that "free" labor in the South vanished. The North's war machine never really was threatend by Southern armies where as the North destroyed much of the South's infrastructure. Good topic Whale!!

The slaves weren't really freed until each southern state was defeated. Until that point, the Emancipation was just a noble-sounding piece of paper.

The Emancipation Proclomation was not about freeing slaves but about changing the point of the war from State Rights to Human rights which is what Abe Lincoln knew it would take to draw in International aid and help from Europe and the U.K. A brilliant move by all accounts. It was the last nail in the coffin for the south other then there own HUGE mistake of going off the deffensive and on the offensive.

OK mate, whilst that's a nice (albeit unsupported) hypothesis, can you please give us a starting point which lays out you argument and proposition, as the above is just an opinion?

We need:

1). How do you support that view - dates, battles, synopses, analyses and outcomes of events and your understanding of the key attributes/failings of the main protagonists (i.e. Lee & Jackson)? You might want to toss in an overview of the political aspirations and problems faced of the two respective presidents of the Confederacy and the Union.

2). What events support your proposition?

3). In which way did "the south beat itself" - what argument or information can you offer which supports your view?


If you can open with a supported proposition, you've every chance of others wanting to join in the debate.

Mate.... you walked right in to this one... this is my favorit area of History (other then the forming of union and the constitutional and fedrialist thinking are) and I would be more then happy to develope this when I'm not at work.... but for now let me say that it was Lee's misgudgment to go north in to Union tarritoury that cost the south the war. The Union would have had a hard time traveling in to the deep south and winning battles and they did have a hard time (The Union actually lost battles after Gettysburg in the south). If the Confedirate army had any chance at Gettysburg it would have needed the in battle taction mind of Jackson to pull it off. That coupled with Long Streets hesitance and lack of confidence to proceed north and engage the Union army ment certin doom for the South. Lee litarly was counting on God to see them through because even he knew that they were up agenst tall odds and should never have went North of the Virginia's.

The South had pushed the Union out of Confedirate tarritory but followed it north only after they were able to regroup at Gettysburg.... a classic blunder. Had Longstreet talked Lee out of fighting there on the 2nd day things would have been diffrent... but if you ask me they should have never even ventured in to the North they should have withdrawn and regrouped....

If you think about it the south always conciderd it a war of "Northern Agression" and they thought there souvernty as States were being violated. Invadeing Northern states did not fit in to the Confedirate mold for Forgine or Domestic Policy. This had been mentioned in letters between Jefferson and Lee the problum was that Lee really did have more Power and say then did Jefferson the Confedirate Presidant....

I can go in to further detail later but I'm at work and I don't have my books and papers to check on dates and spellings and such.. but trust me I want to kick these notions around with ya'all... so give me some stuff to think about would ya?

[yesfannh]

The Emancipation Proclamation

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/fea..._proclamation/

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Mate.... you walked right in to this one... this is my favourite area of History (other then the forming of union and the constitutional and federalist thinking are) and I would be more then happy to develop this when I'm not at work....

Calm down Cochise I merely wanted an expanded initial proposition - all debates have to start with one which supports the proponent's stance and position, so that other readers may decide to take either a counter or allied view and argue/debate accordingly.

The aim of the game in any debate is either to prove your initial proposition, to the satisfaction of your opponents, or at least convince them that, in the absence of any unavailable information, that your proposition is the most likely to be the case.

For my part, I'm here to learn about this period in History - it not being my metier or forte. Apologies in advance if some of the questions appear a little 'bone' - but remember, this is your specialist subject, not mine. Damned fine choice of topic though!

...but for now let me say that it was Lee's misjudgement to go north in to Union territory that cost the south the war.

And an excellent start - all we have to so now is decide whether you can develop & support that assertion as having basis in fact.

'Misjudgement' how? Did he over-extend his supply and logistics lines to the front? Did he miscalculate the number of battalions he'd need for the anticipated battles ahead? Did he not have good intelligence on Union activity/capability/numbers/defences in the AO?

...The Union would have had a hard time travelling in to the deep south and winning battles and they did have a hard time...

Why would the Union have a hard time doing so? Again - were they unprepared (politically or militarily), not have the requisite manpower, munitions? Given their then known capabilities, might they also faced being over-extended in their lines?

...(The Union actually lost battles after Gettysburg in the south). If the Confederate army had any chance at Gettysburg it would have needed the in-battle tactician mind of Jackson to pull it off.

And it is therefore your assertion that the South lost Gettysburg due to being what? - being out-manoeuvred, out-soldiered, or that Jackson used his superior tactical skills to read the lie of the land and use it to his advantage as Wellington did against Napoleon at Waterloo; or was the South merely overwhelmed by the North on all fronts?

In all battles there is a key 'difference' - sometimes almost an imperceptible one - which causes one side to win and the other to lose: so what was the difference, in your reckoning, here?

...That coupled with Long Street's hesitance and lack of confidence to proceed north and engage the Union army meant certain doom for the South.

So what was it that caused Longstreet's hesitation in heading north - leading to his confidence being eroded? And what was so pivotal in any engagement with the north at this stage which spelled doom for the South?

...Lee literally was counting on God to see them through because even he knew that they were up against tall odds and should never have went North of the Virginia's.

What was it that reduced Lee to placing his hope for any victory in God alone? What were these 'tall odds' being faced by his side which might have suggested that their move to the Virginias was not tactility a sound idea? Facing superior forces, lie of the land (and tactical layout for Lee's assembled forces), or being unprepared?

The South had pushed the Union out of Confederate territory but followed it north only after they were able to regroup at Gettysburg.... a classic blunder. Had Longstreet talked Lee out of fighting there on the 2nd day things would have been different... but if you ask me they should have never even ventured in to the North they should have withdrawn and regrouped....

OK, there is a number of questions to be asked here, given your above appraisal:

1. Why was regrouping at or prior to Gettysburg a "classic blunder"? Surely dispersed/strung-out and logistically unsupported forces are diluted in their ability/capabillty to attack/defend or take the fight to the enemy?

2. What makes you think that had Longstreet talked Lee out of fighting at Gettysburg then things might have been different? And why is the 2nd day of key importance?

3. You say that they (the South) should not have ventured North and should have regrouped, and yet you maintain that earlier (see question 1.) that regrouping under different(?) circumstances was a "classic blunder"? What differentiates the two - why was one regrouping a sound decision and the other a blunder?

If you think about it the south always considered it a war of "Northern Aggression" and they thought their sovereignty as States were being violated.

And how do you see the above assertion as providing a warning for modern-day USA?

Allow me to elucidate.

Would it be fair to say that there was no feeling of national cohesion or any sense of national identity (i.e. that the US - as it then stood - was just a loose collation of non-allied 'statelettes') at the time of the War? Did the South see itself as 'another country'? Why was this?

Invading Northern states did not fit in to the Confederate mould for Foreign or Domestic Policy.

That statement allows me to think that the South did indeed see itself as 'another country', with its own operating procedures - can this be said to be true 10 years before the War started and why? Other than the stock simplistic answer of 'differences over slavery' - what caused the South to split and engage in this war?

...This had been mentioned in letters between Jefferson and Lee the problem was that Lee really did have more Power and say than did Jefferson the Confederate President....

And what conclusion do you draw from the fact that a mere field general (Lee) had more decision making power than that of the nominal (in your summary) president of the Confederacy?

Might the fact that a military man be given more power than (I'm assuming) an elected man have doomed the South? Had the civilian (Jefferson) been supreme in his position, authority and power-base, might the war have taken a different plan, route and course? Might the battles chosen to be fought been different?

I can go in to further detail later but I'm at work and I don't have my books and papers to check on dates and spellings and such.. but trust me I want to kick these notions around with ya'all... so give me some stuff to think about would ya?

I trust I might have and look forward to your responses

[The Whale]

I so wish I wasnt at work right now.....!

[BillGuitar]

We took my son to Gettysburg (First Civil War Memorial) over the weekend, and he was just amazed looking at the battlefields. We went to the museum first, then made our way around the monuments with all the soldiers' names. Wow. There was a feeling in the air.

Supposedly one of the most haunted places in the U.S.
You felt something alright. *shudder*

There's some lighthouse right next to a Civil War battlefield that had the frickin' CREEPIEST thing I've ever heard. The answering machine takes a call at like 3:00 in the morning - but no one answers or says anything - just static and weird electronic noises that went on for about a minute...

Who calls a lighthouse (abandoned) in the middle of the night?

I still wish I hadn't seen that on the History Channel. Freaks me out just typing this!

Bad war. Stupid people. *sigh*

[tardistraveler]

I can't discuss this from the viewpoint of a historian or a military tactician. I can only offer these observations.

Over 600,000 people lost their lives in this war. It's mind-boggling to even THINK about it . . . a very stupid war, with heinous consequences.

On some level, the struggle isn't even completely over with today. The feeling of southerners towards northerners goes beyond anything racial in nature. There is certainly some hostility there still today.

I was raised in a south who espoused the slogan "The South Shall Rise Again". I think it really has, although not quite in the way that the folks who coined that phrase envisioned.

I've been to a number of Civil War battlefields. This was once my parents' idea of a "fun" vacation, so we'd go here and there, tramping across the battlefields, reading all the markers that told what happened where. It's amazing the vibe you get in these places . . . sometimes it's an intense energy, and other times it's that of total despair. I've spent a lot of time in the Chattanooga/Chicamauga area, and you can feel the passion of what happened there. The worst was at Shiloh . . . the vibe there was sickening . . . you could feel the horror of what the men there endured, and it persists today.

It IS a fascinating period in our history, but one I'm not especially proud of.

And I've always wondered what might have occurred if the South had won the war, or if the decision had been made to simply let them secede, and not fight? Perhaps some of you historians out here can address that one . . .

[BillGuitar]

I remember visiting the Gettysburg museum and the battlefields, with my family. I was very young too, pre-teens, definitely. And that place just weirded me out. Diane is right - you can feel negative karma, or something, in the air. Just not a fun place to be. I couldn't wait to get away...

I really have no desire to go back.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

I so wish I wasn't at work right now.....!

So do I mate - please hurry home and complete my education

[Hill St.]

I so wish I wasnt at work right now.....!

Free the Whale!

[orpheus]

Most of what I know about the war I gleaned from watching Ken Burns excellent docu/series. What struck me is how soldiers on both sides just kind of marched in formation into entrenched positions which seemed to be little more than death traps. And they just kept doing it throughout the war with the result that troops were mowed down by the thousands, over and over again.

What a waste of humanity

[Olorin]

Most of what I know about the war I gleaned from watching Ken Burns excellent docu/series. What struck me is how soldiers on both sides just kind of marched in formation into entrenched positions which seemed to be little more than death traps. And they just kept doing it throughout the war with the result that troops were mowed down by the thousands, over and over again.

What a waste of humanity

Truly.

And what is surprising is that less than a hundred years before, the colonists had used more modern tactics, more guerilla-like tactics, with great success against the redcoats—lying in hiding and blasting them as they marched by.

Whenever the paradigm of war changes, the side that doesn't make the switch generally loses.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Most of what I know about the war I gleaned from watching Ken Burns excellent docu/series. What struck me is how soldiers on both sides just kind of marched in formation into entrenched positions which seemed to be little more than death traps. And they just kept doing it throughout the war with the result that troops were mowed down by the thousands, over and over again.

What a waste of humanity

Aye, but you're speaking with the benefit on hindsight - that which makes us all geniuses.

The US Civil War was fought on the same lines as the Peninsular War & Waterloo (Wellington vs Napoleon) where columns and 'lines' stood to against each other; infantry cannonade and fusillade and cavalry charges were 'set-piece' manoeuvres. Only latterly, indeed after only the early stages of WW I were these mistakes corrected - alas, not in time for the poor souls who went to their deaths here.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Truly.

And what is surprising is that less than a hundred years before, the colonists had used more modern tactics, more guerilla-like tactics, with great success against the redcoats—lying in hiding and blasting them as they marched by.

Whenever the paradigm of war changes, the side that doesn't make the switch generally loses.

What you describe being, in effect and result, the actions of a modern day special forces unit - small, agile and mobile teams impacting disproportionate to their size damages on a lot larger force, on their own terms and ignoring the "usual" 'rules of war'.

[Yes.2]

It was a war worth fightin'

Slavery is a blackmark worth removing. Lincoln, was quite an individual. I don't like how he's the one on the penny. He should be the one on the 50 dollar bill at least.