RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/12/2006 8:59:00 AM

Jonathan Palfrey

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
ARTICLE I
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 8. Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

My interpretation of this clause would be that it clearly and specifically applies to "the United States". It doesn't apply to States that are no longer United.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
It would be hypocritical to say the South couldn't break away from the Union when the United States was formed the very same way.

Indeed. I'm British, so this point seems rather obvious to me, but I seldom see it mentioned by Americans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
I believe the South had many chances of victory. There are many things we can see today that they may have been unable to see at the time. Hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn't diminish the fact the chances were there.

Indeed. Although what happens if you give both sides the benefits of hindsight?

(in reply to RERomine)

Post #: 61

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/12/2006 2:09:36 PM

RERomine

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
ARTICLE I
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 8. Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

My interpretation of this clause would be that it clearly and specifically applies to "the United States". It doesn't apply to States that are no longer United.

The main reason I brought that up is parts of the U.S. Constitution were used to cite how it is "legal" to secede. My point is one can't cherry pick from the document to support one's point. Either the entire document is binding or none of it is.

Overall, arguing legality is pointless because revolutions happen when people feel they have been pushed to their breaking point. They typically don't consider legalities at that point. Had the differing sides not been sectionally divided as much as they were, I doubt the question would have even come up. I don't think the legal question about the English Civil War or the French Revolution even comes up, but I'm not sure. Feel free to correct me, since I'm stepping into areas I'm not that familar with.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
It would be hypocritical to say the South couldn't break away from the Union when the United States was formed the very same way.

Indeed. I'm British, so this point seems rather obvious to me, but I seldom see it mentioned by Americans.

Often, being too close to the question, we miss the obvious. I try to put aside the emotional and focus on supporting evidence. It just takes me a while to get to some points.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
I believe the South had many chances of victory. There are many things we can see today that they may have been unable to see at the time. Hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn't diminish the fact the chances were there.

Indeed. Although what happens if you give both sides the benefits of hindsight?

There are some situations where hindsight would be unique. Someone other than Jefferson Davis as President of the Confederacy probably could have helped it. The North could have little influence on who ran the Confederacy. Another instance was the cotton embargo. That was a uniquely Southern decision. If we were to consider battle outcomes, then yes, hindsight would have benefitted both side.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)

Post #: 62

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/12/2006 3:02:33 PM

Jonathan Palfrey

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Overall, arguing legality is pointless because revolutions happen when people feel they have been pushed to their breaking point. They typically don't consider legalities at that point. Had the differing sides not been sectionally divided as much as they were, I doubt the question would have even come up. I don't think the legal question about the English Civil War or the French Revolution even comes up, but I'm not sure. Feel free to correct me, since I'm stepping into areas I'm not that familar with.

I agree with your main point. Indeed, to attempt to prohibit secession by law is futile in a sense, because a people seeking secession have already in their own minds rejected their existing government and its laws. So they may be dissuaded by force, but not by law.

Your terminology and analogies are not perfect in this case. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a revolution is "The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another." The French Revolution and the English Civil War were both revolutionary in that sense. But the so-called American Revolution and the American Civil War were not really revolutions: they were both wars of independence. In neither case was there any attempt to overthrow the existing government and replace it with another.

(in reply to RERomine)

Post #: 63

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/12/2006 3:47:38 PM

RERomine

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Your terminology and analogies are not perfect in this case. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a revolution is "The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another." The French Revolution and the English Civil War were both revolutionary in that sense. But the so-called American Revolution and the American Civil War were not really revolutions: they were both wars of independence. In neither case was there any attempt to overthrow the existing government and replace it with another.

That makes sense. Sectionalism allows a group to strive for independence, i.e. old government and new goverment co-exist. Where such sectionalism doesn't exist, the only choice is to overthrow the government, i.e. old government ceases to exist, replaced by new goverment.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)

Post #: 64

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/12/2006 6:21:10 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

Ben Franklin probably put it best. "Rebellion is always legal in the first person..., Our Rebellion. It's only illegal in the third person, Their Rebellion, that it becomes illegal" I doubt very much if anyone in the world would even worry about such issues as if succession was a "Constitutional Right" except for Britons and Americans.

(in reply to RERomine)

Post #: 65

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/12/2006 7:44:27 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

Ahh yes, claiming revisionism only has to do with the Holocost in an effort to make any further arguement along that line some how tainted. Nice touch, not true, but nice try.

Revisionsm is the process by which historians go about rewriting history based on criteria that has little to do with the reality of the history itself.

Judging historical societies with current morals and beliefs and THEN rewriting the history based on those morals and societal norms would be a form of Revisionism.

Using hindsight , information that the parties at the time in history did not have, to judge the actions and rewriting history along those lines, is another form of revisionism.

There are more. One of course being rewriting history to remove embarrassing incidents.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 66

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/12/2006 7:47:38 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

Speaking of revisionist history.... I am still waiting for the evidence that Richmond was the Capitol of the Confedercy when Lincoln called for Volunteers initally. If it was not, why would he have used the slogan " On to Richmond"?

Well that and whether the call went out before or after the South attacked the North.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)

Post #: 67

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/12/2006 8:33:25 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Speaking of revisionist history.... I am still waiting for the evidence that Richmond was the Capitol of the Confedercy when Lincoln called for Volunteers initally. If it was not, why would he have used the slogan " On to Richmond"? He didn't..., it was the Banner Headline in numerous Northern Newspapers and the rallying cry at recruiting stations.

Well that and whether the call went out before or after the South attacked the North. The "call for Volunteers" went out after the fall of Ft. Sumpter.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 68

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/12/2006 8:34:49 PM

Jonathan Palfrey

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Judging historical societies with current morals and beliefs and THEN rewriting the history based on those morals and societal norms would be a form of Revisionism.

I'm rather conscious of this. Throughout most of human history, slavery was regarded as normal and moral, and aggressive wars of conquest seem to have been regarded as normal and moral too.

From my modern point of view, the main fault of the CSA was that it went in for slavery on a large scale, and the main fault of the USA was that it went in for an aggressive war of conquest on a large scale. But in the 19th century popular attitudes to these things were still in a state of transition, which makes the attitudes of the two sides more understandable. They both believed they were right; and in the 19th century they had some excuse for believing so.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 69

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/12/2006 9:08:03 PM

Grifman

Posts: 156
Joined: 7/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

and the main fault of the USA was that it went in for an aggressive war of conquest on a large scale.

Why was this wrong? Throughout history gov't have tried to maintain order by quashing rebellions. The US govt had every right and indeed obligation to bring the rebel states to heel. And what about those Southerners who wanted no part of the Confederacy? Didn't they have the right for their govt to protect them?

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)

Post #: 70

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/12/2006 9:18:43 PM

RERomine

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Judging historical societies with current morals and beliefs and THEN rewriting the history based on those morals and societal norms would be a form of Revisionism.

I'm rather conscious of this. Throughout most of human history, slavery was regarded as normal and moral, and aggressive wars of conquest seem to have been regarded as normal and moral too.

From my modern point of view, the main fault of the CSA was that it went in for slavery on a large scale, and the main fault of the USA was that it went in for an aggressive war of conquest on a large scale. But in the 19th century popular attitudes to these things were still in a state of transition, which makes the attitudes of the two sides more understandable. They both believed they were right; and in the 19th century they had some excuse for believing so.

Contemporary nations of the 1860 United States frowned upon slavery, so that point I don't believe is revisionist. While I'm sure it was seen abroad as a war of aggression, the Federal goverment wasn't doing anything that hadn't been done by other goverments before and since. It was attempting to restore control of areas rebelling against the central goverment. And the Confederacy fired the first shots, so that wasn't going to buy them any dispensation from the central government. Finally, it was the South that violated the neutrality of Kentucky. Where the North and South could be viewed as opposing sides, Kentucky was willing to just sit it out, at least for a while. Which banner Kentucky would have sided with if left to their own devises was rendered moot.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)

Post #: 71

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/12/2006 9:26:35 PM

RERomine

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grifman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

and the main fault of the USA was that it went in for an aggressive war of conquest on a large scale.

Why was this wrong? Throughout history gov't have tried to maintain order by quashing rebellions. The US govt had every right and indeed obligation to bring the rebel states to heel. And what about those Southerners who wanted no part of the Confederacy? Didn't they have the right for their govt to protect them?

I doubt there is or ever has been a nation of any size where there were minority groups with views that differed from the majority and consequentially, the government. The North had their Southern sympathizers and the South had their Northern sympathizers. I don't believe I've ever heard of instances where Northern sympathizers in the South were at any risk where they needed protection. The reverse is not true. Southern sympathizers in the North were often viewed as traitors and it was best if they kept their views to themselves.

< Message edited by RERomine -- 11/12/2006 10:01:05 PM >

(in reply to Grifman)

Post #: 72

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/12/2006 10:37:11 PM

Jonathan Palfrey

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline

The Confederate action of firing on Fort Sumter was a damn-fool stunt, and I'm happy to condemn it as belligerent and stupid. But it killed one horse, only.

The Union action (in response) of conquering the Confederacy by military force killed half a million people and wounded half a million more. It also caused a vast amount of destruction, mostly in the Southern states.

Doesn't this seem rather disproportionate? What was achieved by all this death and destruction except to replace one government by another quite similar government?

(It also freed the slaves, but this was obviously an incidental side-effect from the point of view of the US government.)

If those same states seceded tomorrow, and the USA waged the same war against them, I'd regard the US President as no better than Hitler or Stalin. A desire for political separation is no excuse for mass murder.

"The US govt had every right and indeed obligation to bring the rebel states to heel." Help, I need a sick bag, now. Please go and reread the US declaration of independence, where it talks about governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. As a matter of interest, do you think that the British government in the 18th century had the same right and obligation to bring the rebel states to heel? Do you regret that it failed?

"And what about those Southerners who wanted no part of the Confederacy? Didn't they have the right for their govt to protect them?" I don't think that white Union sympathizers in the South were in danger. Maybe the black slaves would have liked US government protection, but that same government had never recognized them as citizens.

"Throughout history gov't have tried to maintain order by quashing rebellions." Let me rephrase that. Throughout history kings and politicians have tried to maintain their power by massacring anyone who stood in their way. The sooner this tradition is extinguished, the better.

EDIT: In this message I got a little over-excited, perhaps because of the wine I'd been drinking that day. I apologize to anyone who thought it out of place in a game forum.

< Message edited by Jonathan Palfrey -- 11/13/2006 2:07:01 PM >

(in reply to Grifman)

Post #: 73

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/12/2006 10:59:55 PM

Jonathan Palfrey

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Contemporary nations of the 1860 United States frowned upon slavery, so that point I don't believe is revisionist. While I'm sure it was seen abroad as a war of aggression, the Federal goverment wasn't doing anything that hadn't been done by other goverments before and since. It was attempting to restore control of areas rebelling against the central goverment. And the Confederacy fired the first shots, so that wasn't going to buy them any dispensation from the central government. Finally, it was the South that violated the neutrality of Kentucky. Where the North and South could be viewed as opposing sides, Kentucky was willing to just sit it out, at least for a while. Which banner Kentucky would have sided with if left to their own devises was rendered moot.

Most of what you say is correct, but in 1860 slavery still existed -- and was legal -- in various parts of the world other than the Southern states of the USA. According to Wikipedia, these are the dates when particular countries abolished slavery: the Netherlands 1863, Puerto Rico 1873, Cuba 1880, Brazil 1888, Korea 1894, Zanzibar 1897, China 1910, Burma 1929, Ethiopia 1936 (under duress), Tibet 1959 (under duress), Saudi Arabia 1962, Mauritania 1980.

Most other countries abolished slavery in the late 18th or early 19th centuries. In 1860 the idea of abolishing it was still relatively recent.

I agree that governments have attempted throughout history to quash secession by force. That doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do, but it does help to explain why Northerners at the time thought it was the right thing to do.

Of course, moving into Kentucky was another damn-fool stunt. I don't have the facts to hand; was it really authorized by the CS government or just done at the initiative of some soldier with no idea of the political consequences?

(in reply to RERomine)

Post #: 74

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/12/2006 11:49:15 PM

RERomine

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

The Confederate action of firing on Fort Sumter was a damn-fool stunt, and I'm happy to condemn it as belligerent and stupid. But it killed one horse, only.

The Union action (in response) of conquering the Confederacy by military force killed half a million people and wounded half a million more. It also caused a vast amount of destruction, mostly in the Southern states.

Doesn't this seem rather disproportionate? What was achieved by all this death and destruction except to replace one government by another quite similar government?

(It also freed the slaves, but this was obviously an incidental side-effect from the point of view of the US government.)
separation is no excuse for mass murder.

World War I was started with a single bullet. If the conditions are right, it only takes something small as a catalyst to start a war.

quote:

If those same states seceded tomorrow, and the USA waged the same war against them, I'd regard the US President as no better than Hitler or Stalin. A desire for political separation is no excuse for mass murder.

Society has matured much since the 19th century and to a great extent in the last 50 years since Hitler and Stalin. I will admit that I don't know how I would react if such a situation occurred today, because I don't do a very good job of hypothesizing on how I would feel. Some sort of moral high ground would be required for me to feel going to war is the right thing to do. Modern maturity doesn't prevent extremists around the world from popping up, however. Not sure it's the job of the United States and England to clean up those situations. If it weren't for the oil, I doubt we would be in the Middle East right now.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)

Post #: 75

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/12/2006 11:53:10 PM

RERomine

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Of course, moving into Kentucky was another damn-fool stunt. I don't have the facts to hand; was it really authorized by the CS government or just done at the initiative of some soldier with no idea of the political consequences?

I believe Polk did it on his own, without approval. Approved or not, he wore gray when he went into Kentucky. Not sure it would have made any difference, but the South could have done a better job playing the aggrieved, repressed section of the United States.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)

Post #: 76

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/12/2006 11:55:47 PM

Grifman

Posts: 156
Joined: 7/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

The Confederate action of firing on Fort Sumter was a damn-fool stunt, and I'm happy to condemn it as belligerent and stupid. But it killed one horse, only.

It was the proximate cause of the war that as you note killed half a million people. Sorry, you can't lay all the blame on the North here. No rebellion, no war - pretty simple, really.

quote:

The Union action (in response) of conquering the Confederacy by military force killed half a million people and wounded half a million more. It also caused a vast amount of destruction, mostly in the Southern states.

And maybe the South should have thought of that before revolting. Again, you just can't pin this on the North. Want to blame both, fine - but to try and put most of the blame on the North just isn't historical.

quote:

Doesn't this seem rather disproportionate?

No, not given what the ultimate result would have been - a concept of nationhood that would have meant nothing. North American could have conceivably ended up with dozens of nations, as any time some state didn't like something, they'd just decide to leave. What kind of democracy is it when the losers in an election can just leave? That's not a democracy - or a nation.

quote:

What was achieved by all this death and destruction except to replace one government by another quite similar government?

They weren't similar - if you believe that the South would have allowed secession. THat's a crucial difference - and what the war was about. The concept of nationhood and democracy. And even more can be seen in the racial attitudes of the South in the 50's and 60's. The North wasn't a paradise of racial harmony but the old racial attitudes lasted way too long in the South. A Southern victory would have perpetuated those racial attitudes much longer than they ended up lasting. Think of a North American "South Africa" well into the 20th century.

quote:

If those same states seceded tomorrow, and the USA waged the same war against them, I'd regard the US President as no better than Hitler or Stalin. A desire for political separation is no excuse for mass murder.

Oh, please don't be silly. If you're going to equate Abraham Lincoln to Hitler and Stalin, no one's going to take you seriously. And exactly who's mass murdering here? War is not the same as mass murder. I am not convinced by your rhetorical excess, though I am amused.

quote:

"The US govt had every right and indeed obligation to bring the rebel states to heel."

Help, I need a sick bag, now. Please go and reread the US declaration of independence, where it talks about governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

You should need a sick bag at this point given your arguments. The Southern states had their representation in the Senate and US House and could vote for president. As such they had the right and ability to express their views under the Constitution - and get them enacted in laws if they could muster enough support.

It's quite obvious that "consent of the govern" doesn't mean that any one or any state could leave whenever they didn't consent - if so then why even have elections, because someonw will always lose, and hence not in some sense "consent" to that govt. Democracy doesn't guarantee that your positions will be implemented into law and never has. Yet that is what you are demanding.'

And while we'r reading the Constitution, where in the Constitution does it say you can pick up your marbles and leave if you don't like an election result?

quote:

As a matter of interest, do you think that the British government in the 18th century had the same right and obligation to bring the rebel states to heel? Do you regret that it failed?

The American colonies had no representation in Parliment. Hence they had every right to rebel because they had no say in their govt. Unfortunately, the South did have representation in the US govt. They are not the same situation before their respective rebellions.

quote:

"And what about those Southerners who wanted no part of the Confederacy? Didn't they have the right for their govt to protect them?" I don't think that white Union sympathizers in the South were in danger. Maybe the black slaves would have liked US government protection, but that same government had never recognized them as citizens.

'

Whoa, but Southern unionists didn't give their consent to the separation from the North. Now you're hoisted on your own petard. Don't they have rights? Wasn't it wrong for the South to secede when they didn't give their consent? What about their rights? What about their consent? Hmmm, seems like things are breaking down a bit here for you.

And do you really think a southern unionist exercising his free speech going around calling Jeff Davis a traitor would have lasted long? Hmm, loan me your bag please - I think I need it now.

quote:

"Throughout history gov't have tried to maintain order by quashing rebellions." Let me rephrase that. Throughout history kings and politicians have tried to maintain their power by massacring anyone who stood in their way. The sooner this tradition is extinguished, the better.

Oh, please, if anyone was trying to "maintain" their power it was the Southern white upper class. They led the movement into war and were those most strongly behind it. I suggest you take your own perscription and apply to the South and it's motives at the same time you try and apply it to the North.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)

Post #: 77

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/13/2006 12:10:43 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

Why don't we bring this thread to a halt with the admission that the South probably couldn't have "won"..., but it could potentially have held on long enough that the North "lost". Basically the same kind of "victory" that the 13 Colonies had achieved against Great Britian.

(in reply to Grifman)

Post #: 78

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/13/2006 12:20:48 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

Agreed

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 79

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/13/2006 12:52:59 AM

RERomine

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

Sounds like the thread has run it's course.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 80

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/13/2006 12:57:26 AM

Jonathan Palfrey

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grifman
And maybe the South should have thought of that before revolting. Again, you just can't pin this on the North. Want to blame both, fine - but to try and put most of the blame on the North just isn't historical.

OK, I'll make you happy and blame both sides. The CSA recklessly and stupidly invited war; the USA accepted the invitation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grifman
North America could have conceivably ended up with dozens of nations, as any time some state didn't like something, they'd just decide to leave. What kind of democracy is it when the losers in an election can just leave?

Sounds great to me. If people don't want to stay in a country, why should they? A country, like a club, should be a voluntary association of people for mutual benefit. If people don't feel they benefit, they should be free to form a new club.

Given the freedom to separate, any nation would split into dozens of nations only if that's what the people wanted. If they tried it and decided they didn't like it, they'd be equally free to join up again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grifman
If you're going to equate Abraham Lincoln to Hitler and Stalin, no one's going to take you seriously.

That's not what I said. To give Lincoln credit, up to the Fort Sumter incident he seemed to be carefully trying to avoid war. Furthermore, he and his government were of the 19th century and I make some allowance for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grifman
It's quite obvious that "consent of the governed" doesn't mean that any one or any state could leave whenever they didn't consent ...

What else could it mean? If a government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, and the governed don't consent any more, then it no longer has any just powers over them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grifman
Whoa, but Southern unionists didn't give their consent to the separation from the North. Now you're hoisted on your own petard. Don't they have rights? Wasn't it wrong for the South to secede when they didn't give their consent? What about their rights? What about their consent? Hmmm, seems like things are breaking down a bit here for you.

Not really. As far as I'm concerned, it would be OK for Virginia and Tennessee to split. It wasn't OK for the CS politicians, but that was their own hypocrisy, not mine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grifman
Oh, please, if anyone was trying to "maintain" their power it was the Southern white upper class. They led the movement into war and were those most strongly behind it. I suggest you take your own perscription and apply to the South and it's motives at the same time you try and apply it to the North.

This is fair comment. As you say, both sides were trying to maintain their own powers and their own selfish interests. That's the way people are.

(in reply to Grifman)

Post #: 81

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/13/2006 12:59:12 AM

Jonathan Palfrey

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Why don't we bring this thread to a halt with the admission that the South probably couldn't have "won"..., but it could potentially have held on long enough that the North "lost". Basically the same kind of "victory" that the 13 Colonies had achieved against Great Britian.

I would have agreed to that at the start.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 82

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/13/2006 6:11:37 AM

AU Tiger_MatrixForum

Posts: 1606
Joined: 10/9/2006
From: Deepest Dixie
Status: offline

Or we could rename this thread, "How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin?"

_____________________________

"Never take counsel of your fears."

Tho. Jackson

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)

Post #: 83

RE: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? - 11/13/2006 11:23:03 AM

Jonathan Palfrey

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline

I'll go for 42.

(in reply to AU Tiger_MatrixForum)

Post #: 84

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/13/2006 4:58:34 PM

Oldguard

Posts: 94
Joined: 9/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Revisionsm is the process by which historians go about rewriting history based on criteria that has little to do with the reality of the history itself.

Sort of like claiming that secession was forbidden by the Constitution?

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 85

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/13/2006 5:00:33 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

Yup thats JUST like revisionism, sure thing.

(in reply to Oldguard)

Post #: 86

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/13/2006 5:11:14 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

GOD..., Here we go again.....

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 87

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/13/2006 8:03:31 PM

andysomers

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline

I've restrained on this one for quite a while....

Did the South have a chance to win the war?

This is one of two questions...

1) Did the South have the ability to militarily dominate the North? The answer to this is no - clearly no. Northern resources were simply too much. The only way that this could have even conveiably have happened was if the South conquered Washington immediately following First Manassas. I would argue that the US would have relocated the captial and resources would have been concentrated to retake DC. Even so - this is all my speculation.

2) This is the more accurate way to ask this question. Could the South have had its independence recognized by the united States (and England, France, et al)? - in my mind the answer is most clearly yes. Two things could have happened where the North would have probably lost its will to fight. European recognition, or the removal of Lincoln (Democratic victory in the Presidential election of 1864, coup d'etat, or assassination).

Someone made the correlation earlier to Vietnam - I think that is right on. North Vietnam could not have beaten the US militarily, if the US was fully committed to the war. North Vietnam with the help of the Soviets or Chinese (analagous to European recognition), or by defeating the US will to fight (what historically happened), allowed a much smaller country (in terms of size and resource) to defeat a Goliath.

I think the North teetered on the brink of collapse several times. Lincoln's will and political genius saved it - I would vehemently argue that.

Also - to the point that the war was fought, and no outcome was achieved - you are completely misinformed. The Civil War redefined this country, and the role the federal government played in it. Up until this time, it was highly in doubt as to which was more powerful, the state or federal government. This war removed that issue without a doubt and established the federal government of the United States as the supreme governing body of the land. In short, before the Civil War one would say "the United States are...." afterwards, one says "the United States is..."

AS

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 88

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/13/2006 8:16:46 PM

ezzler

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline

To bring us all back to more of a gaming level

1} Assuming the game starts from the day AFTER Fort Sumter so war is already a forgone conclusion and seccession has begun

and

2} The slavery issue remains as historically was

3} And both sides decide against paying each other off { an interesting notion but a poor game !! " Here's your cheque Mr Lincoln .. Thanks Mr Davis" }

Does anyone have any suggestions for GOOD or at least alternative strategies that the CSA or the UNION may try to use.

In the old FROM SUMTER TO APPOTOMAX i used to put all efforts into courting English support. This usually meant a couple of big military victories and then digging in to protect the borders. Mixed results but can really pay off if it goes well

The coast ... how to defend the ports or is it too difficult or worth the effort ?

The Union ... forget the naval embargo and concentrate resources on a land campaign.?

And going for the capitols... Does it pay off ? Or tackle the armies ?

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 89

RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? - 11/13/2006 8:31:35 PM

Jonathan Palfrey

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline

Well, the game isn't out yet, so few of us will have much idea how best to play it.

If you mean how it should be played assuming that it's absolutely realistic in all respects, there are maybe a few things that could be said.

For either side to concentrate on a frontal assault on the other's capital looks to me like a losing strategy, because it will cause a lot of casualties that will sap national will, and allow your opponent to enjoy fighting on the defensive in prepared positions (while perhaps making gains in the west). I reckon the "On to Richmond!" slogan was a mistake -- although Virginia is a good prize if you can take it.

With hindsight, it looks as though the Confederacy should have defended New Orleans better. But then it didn't know where the Union would go, so it would have to consider defending some other coastal cities too, which starts to get expensive.

We'll start to get more ideas when we have the game and we've played it a bit.

(in reply to ezzler)

Post #: 90

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ?