RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

ckammp -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/17/2014 12:50:03 AM)
There was never any serious chance of European recognition of the Confederacy. The one slim chance was the Trent affair in late 1861, but the combination of Prince Albert's intervention and the result of the battle of Antietam ended that hope. Militarily, the claim that the British navy would easily defeat the United States navy is false. By 1863, the US had a dozen ironclads, by war's end it had 50, three times as many as Britain.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/17/2014 1:18:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp Militarily, the claim that the British navy would easily defeat the United States navy is false. By 1863, the US had a dozen ironclads, by war's end it had 50, three times as many as Britain. My source, "The Complete Encyclopedia of Battleships" only lists seven ocean-going ironclads of the caliber of the Warrior for the USA during the period of the Civil War: New Ironsides 1862 Roanoke 1863 Monadnock 1864 Agamenticus 1864 Miantonomah 1864 Tonawanda 1864 Dictator 1864 There was an Ironclad arms-race going on, and Britain was not about to lose it. The others were coastal or riverine vessels, not suitable for the high seas (as the fate of the Monitor demonstrated).

parusski -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/17/2014 1:28:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trugrit You might find this lecture interesting. Program is about 2 hours long. The second lecture is about southern war strategy. http://series.c-span.org/History/Events/The-Civil-War-Battle-of-Stones-River/10737436630-1/ Thanks for the link. I had this at one time but never watched it and of course lost the link.

parusski -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/17/2014 1:35:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AbwehrX quote: The Idea that the States of Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia would have turned even a part of their State over to a foreign power is ludicrous, Last I checked Britain, France, Spain and Mexico had all outlawed slavery and would have simply replaced the US control for their own. I agree that the odds were against the idea but considering they were only militarily capable of holding maybe a third of their original territory then the very threat of handing over 2/3's of their states might have made the Yankees think twice about prosecuting the war. Their only real chance of an independent South was to reduce their front lines to a Fabian defense and reach out for powerful allies. They failed miserably to do so and they failed militarily so the diplomatic option was the only way to achieve a realistic goal. quote: the ENTIRE reason they left the Union was slavery and supposedly States rights Not really. Most Southerners did not own slaves so most were not fighting for that. They just simply opposed what they considered a dictatorship of Yankees. The north however wasnt going to allow the Union to be divided regardless of the issues at hand because it disrupted their Manifest Destiny agenda. Your second point is spot on. Manifest destiny was very important to Lincoln(The Homestead Act) and do not forget he was willing to leave slavery alone if that would keep the nation together. The ACW was never black and white-NO pun intended.

Aurelian -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/17/2014 2:14:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AbwehrX quote: the ENTIRE reason they left the Union was slavery and supposedly States rights That was the reason. Read the Ordinance of Secession. State rights had little to do with. Considering they didn't want the free states to ignore the Fugitive Slave Law.

Twotribes -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/17/2014 2:14:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes Remind me how many sea going Ironclads the British had? Warrior 1861 Black Prince 1861 Defence 1861 Resistance 1861 Royal Oak 1863 Hector 1864 Valiant 1864 Royal Sovereign 1864 Prince Consort 1864 Caledonia 1864 Ocean 1864 Research 1864 Enterprise 1864 Achilles 1864 Scorpion 1865 Wivern 1865 And the blockade was manned by wooden warships. To conduct that blockade, the North needed naval supremacy - they wouldn't even have had parity. Lol Twotribes.....rebuttal??? [:'(] So they had 4 ironclads in 61, how many did the North have? And of those Ironclads were they OCEAN vessels or not. By 63 when they got a couple more the North had how many? Further did they have coaling stations to get those ironclads to the US? The US would have eaten up the British Navy as they had the local cities and production facilities. But it is moot since there is no way the South was going to trade States for foreign support and the British were not going to recognize a Slave owning Country as it was Illegal in Britain.

Aurelian -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/17/2014 2:23:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp There was never any serious chance of European recognition of the Confederacy. The one slim chance was the Trent affair in late 1861, but the combination of Prince Albert's intervention and the result of the battle of Antietam ended that hope. Militarily, the claim that the British navy would easily defeat the United States navy is false. By 1863, the US had a dozen ironclads, by war's end it had 50, three times as many as Britain. No it isn't. Most of those ironclads were coastal. (Sure, one crossed the Atlantic post war. But it would of been useless in a fight in any but calm seas.) And the RN didn't need to fight, A blockade would work. The Union used wooden ships for its blockade. No Confederate ironclad ever broke it.

Aurelian -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/17/2014 2:36:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes quote: ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes Remind me how many sea going Ironclads the British had? Warrior 1861 Black Prince 1861 Defence 1861 Resistance 1861 Royal Oak 1863 Hector 1864 Valiant 1864 Royal Sovereign 1864 Prince Consort 1864 Caledonia 1864 Ocean 1864 Research 1864 Enterprise 1864 Achilles 1864 Scorpion 1865 Wivern 1865 And the blockade was manned by wooden warships. To conduct that blockade, the North needed naval supremacy - they wouldn't even have had parity. Lol Twotribes.....rebuttal??? [:'(] So they had 4 ironclads in 61, how many did the North have? And of those Ironclads were they OCEAN vessels or not. By 63 when they got a couple more the North had how many? Further did they have coaling stations to get those ironclads to the US? The US would have eaten up the British Navy as they had the local cities and production facilities. But it is moot since there is no way the South was going to trade States for foreign support and the British were not going to recognize a Slave owning Country as it was Illegal in Britain. The RN ironclads were ocean going. And they used sails on a long voyage. Coaling stations? Not that difficult to establish them in the Caribbean or Canada. Probably already had them there. And as the Confederate casemate ironclads couldn't break the Union blockade, which used wooden steamers, how would equally unsuitable low freeboard monitors do it? Then, given how a few Confederate raiders wreaked havoc on Union shipping, what would a far, far larger Royal Navy do?

Capt. Harlock -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/17/2014 4:29:56 AM)
quote: The USA was rather behind the times on this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron Yes and no. The USA banned the African slave trade, though not slavery itself, in 1809. And note the American assistance to the West Africa Squadron.

ckammp -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/17/2014 12:37:16 PM)
In order to impose a blockade of the United States, Britain would have had to defeat the United States navy. How would Britain's out-numbered ocean-going ironclads have defeated the American coastal ironclads? The United States could also send it's coastal ironclads up to Canada, thus denying any staging area to the British fleet. And the United States could always make more ocean-going ironclads if needed.

AbwehrX -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/17/2014 6:32:06 PM)
quote: In order to impose a blockade of the United States, Britain would have had to defeat the United States navy. How would Britain's out-numbered ocean-going ironclads have defeated the American coastal ironclads? The United States could also send it's coastal ironclads up to Canada, thus denying any staging area to the British fleet. And the United States could always make more ocean-going ironclads if needed. Was the US Navy capable of defeating all European navies simultaneously? France was already in Mexico and if given the opportunity they might have considered reclaiming Louisiana and the Mississipi basin. The South did not exercise all of their diplomatic options.

ckammp -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/17/2014 7:16:10 PM)
How and why would "all Europe" unite to aid the Confederates against the Union? Do you have any idea of the political realities of Europe in the 1860s? As for France, the attempt to make Mexico part of an empire ended in complete and utter defeat in 1867; how badly do you think they would have been beaten by the United States? Lastly, where did you get the bizarre idea that the Confederacy would ever agree to give up any of it's territory to a European country?

Capt. Harlock -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/17/2014 7:21:15 PM)
quote: How and why would "all Europe" unite to aid the Confederates against the Union? Do you have any idea of the political realities of Europe in the 1860s? A good point. For one thing, it is exceedingly unlikely that Spain would have interfered on the confederate side: they remembered the "filibusters" from the South who had attempted, Bay of Pigs style, to take over Cuba.

t001001001 -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/18/2014 12:00:09 AM)
I wonder if the war needed to be fought. What if southern states left and northern states shrugged. Slavery was doomed anyway. I reckon w/in a decade the states would have reunited. It's in everyone's best interest. Commerce and common defense. I don't see a 'demilitarized zone' across the mason-dixon. Bah who knows. Aye carumba what a pointless waste of life.

AbwehrX -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/18/2014 1:40:54 AM)
ckammp quote: How and why would "all Europe" unite to aid the Confederates against the Union? Do you have any idea of the political realities of Europe in the 1860s? Yes I know there was a war between the Hapsburgs and the Prussians going on and such but if the South had threatened the North by offering vast territories to the Imperial powers at little or no cost then its possible the North might have offered an armistice and negotiate instead of continuing an unpopular war. quote: As for France, the attempt to make Mexico part of an empire ended in complete and utter defeat in 1867; how badly do you think they would have been beaten by the United States? If offered territory for nothing I believe they wouldve jumped at the chance considering everyone from England to Belgium and Spain was desperate for more lands to control. quote: Lastly, where did you get the bizarre idea that the Confederacy would ever agree to give up any of it's territory to a European country? They couldnt hold it all anyway and that was becoming perilously apparent so why not offer it to a Northern competitor?

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/18/2014 2:14:29 PM)
If Churchill and Stalin could be allies, anything is possible. National self-interest usually trumps ideology. The French king wasn't helping the American Revolution because he loved democracy - quite the contrary. He did it because a successful revolution would weaken his enemy Britain. Britain would have the same motive in the ACW. Look at us now: We're seeking an alliance with IRAN!! The difference was that, while the Americans in the Revolution had demonstrated their viability at Saratoga - where an entire British army was destroyed, the South never quite achieved that level of success. Part of that was due to the tactical realities of 1860 combat (which was mostly attritional), but part of it was due to their strategy as well: A cordon defense. Had they made better use of their interior lines and formed a strategic reserve they might have pulled off the sort of victory they needed for recognition. Once the RN is in the equation, the North's Anaconda strategy will have to unravel, and the South's chances go way up.

Capt. Harlock -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/18/2014 7:24:56 PM)
quote: I wonder if the war needed to be fought. What if southern states left and northern states shrugged. Slavery was doomed anyway. I reckon w/in a decade the states would have reunited. It's in everyone's best interest. Commerce and common defense. I don't see a 'demilitarized zone' across the mason-dixon. Bah who knows. Well, we can make some educated guesses. The Northern states were not going to shrug: they were outraged at the seizure of all the Federal property by the seceding states. (Arsenals, customs-houses, courthouses, mints, and above all the forts and naval bases.) After the flag had been fired on and Fort Sumter taken, Lincoln had no real choice but to call out the troops. And, even if Fort Sumter could have been resolved peacefully, it is likely that North and South would have gone to war over the Arizona Territory. However, I agree that if, in the exceedingly unlikely event that everything could have been compromised without bloodshed, the country would have been reunited in a few years. The South's biggest grievances were that its expansion was blocked (in Kansas and elsewhere), and that fugitive slaves were not being returned. Both of these were made worse rather than better by secession.

AbwehrX -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/18/2014 9:18:44 PM)
Ive read many arguments speculating on what could have altered the outcome of the war and most agree that the South only had a narrow window of opportunity at best to delay or possibly defeat the North enough times to secure independence. I cant cite all the sources since many were more than 40 years ago but some of my relatives and friends of my grandfather whose parents or grandparents actually fought in the ACW (my great aunt Mary for example who died in July 1977 2 weeks after her 100th birthday recalled her fathers letters from relatives in the UK) remembered that rumors circulated at the time that England, France, Spain, Belgium, Portugal and Russia were seriously seeking ways to colonize North America without getting kicked out again. They were looking for deals from anyone who could make them.

Twotribes -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/18/2014 10:10:53 PM)
There was NO CHANCE that Georgia, Florida, North and South Carolina or Virginia would EVER agree to turn themselves over to a foreign power. The WHOLE point of leaving the US was to be INDEPENDENT. Georgia was so rabid over it it would not allow the Confederacy to use its State troops and resisted allowing them to recruit in the State. They continued this policy all the way to the end. The claim that somehow these States would have welcomed being absorbed by a European power is foolish on its face. Further if They had the US would simply have waged war on those European states. As for the claim that Britain could out Ironclad the North, look again Britain had 4 Ironclads in 61 and one more in 63. The US would simply have built more Ironclads of the Ocean going variety if Britain had waged war against the US. And they would have out built the British.

AbwehrX -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/18/2014 10:46:44 PM)
quote: There was NO CHANCE that Georgia, Florida, North and South Carolina or Virginia would EVER agree to turn themselves over to a foreign power. The people wouldnt necessarily have had to surrender their citizenship to a European power. They merely couldve granted enough sections of their states to convince the Euro's to claim & occupy the properties as their own, forcing the Union to negotiate with both the Europeans AND the South simultaneously. The Union may have asserted that land grants made by the Confederacy was illegal but the Europeans couldve deployed troops there and challenged the Union to risk war. The fact of the matter is that the Union (nor the Confederacy for that matter) wasnt strong enough alone to defeat England, France, Belgium and Spain simultaneously. quote: The WHOLE point of leaving the US was to be INDEPENDENT. Georgia was so rabid over it it would not allow the Confederacy to use its State troops and resisted allowing them to recruit in the State. They continued this policy all the way to the end. Perhaps many stubborn fanatics would not have compromised even by the end of 1863 but the course they were on was already doomed and they were going to be occupied or killed anyway. However there was a possible chance that this diplomatic ploy if properly exercised couldve been tried. quote: The claim that somehow these States would have welcomed being absorbed by a European power is foolish on its face. Not necessarily. Was occupation by the Union better for Southerners than say France or Spain? Several thousand Southerners fled to Brazil after the war and their descendants are estimated to be 60,000 strong and remain there now for example- http://www.patsabin.com/lowcountry/confederados.htm quote: Further if They had the US would simply have waged war on those European states. As for the claim that Britain could out Ironclad the North, look again Britain had 4 Ironclads in 61 and one more in 63. The US would simply have built more Ironclads of the Ocean going variety if Britain had waged war against the US. And they would have out built the British. The Union may have tried to wage war on the Europeans but was the Union strong enough to tangle with all of them at the same time??!! Of course not! I think you might have fallen for the Myth of Union Invincibility Syndrom. [sm=00000280.gif]

Twotribes -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/19/2014 12:04:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AbwehrX quote: There was NO CHANCE that Georgia, Florida, North and South Carolina or Virginia would EVER agree to turn themselves over to a foreign power. The people wouldnt necessarily have had to surrender their citizenship to a European power. They merely couldve granted enough sections of their states to convince the Euro's to claim & occupy the properties as their own, forcing the Union to negotiate with both the Europeans AND the South simultaneously. The Union may have asserted that land grants made by the Confederacy was illegal but the Europeans couldve deployed troops there and challenged the Union to risk war. The fact of the matter is that the Union (nor the Confederacy for that matter) wasnt strong enough alone to defeat England, France, Belgium and Spain simultaneously. quote: The WHOLE point of leaving the US was to be INDEPENDENT. Georgia was so rabid over it it would not allow the Confederacy to use its State troops and resisted allowing them to recruit in the State. They continued this policy all the way to the end. Perhaps many stubborn fanatics would not have compromised even by the end of 1863 but the course they were on was already doomed and they were going to be occupied or killed anyway. However there was a possible chance that this diplomatic ploy if properly exercised couldve been tried. quote: The claim that somehow these States would have welcomed being absorbed by a European power is foolish on its face. Not necessarily. Was occupation by the Union better for Southerners than say France or Spain? Several thousand Southerners fled to Brazil after the war and their descendants are estimated to be 60,000 strong and remain there now for example- http://www.patsabin.com/lowcountry/confederados.htm quote: Further if They had the US would simply have waged war on those European states. As for the claim that Britain could out Ironclad the North, look again Britain had 4 Ironclads in 61 and one more in 63. The US would simply have built more Ironclads of the Ocean going variety if Britain had waged war against the US. And they would have out built the British. The Union may have tried to wage war on the Europeans but was the Union strong enough to tangle with all of them at the same time??!! Of course not! I think you might have fallen for the Myth of Union Invincibility Syndrom. [sm=00000280.gif] You can live in your fantasy world where all of Europe would have attacked the US, excuse me if I have better things to do then play make up with history.

AbwehrX -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/19/2014 1:21:36 AM)
Hey keep it friendly, mac. What do you believe the South shouldve done?

Twotribes -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/19/2014 4:23:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AbwehrX Hey keep it friendly, mac. What do you believe the South shouldve done? What they should have done was not leave the Union. Their excuse did not even hold water, the Congress and the Courts all sided with them on the fugitive slave issue. Lincoln did not have the power or connections to change slavery laws or the Constitution. The worst they were looking at was no more slave states. By leaving they created the very thing they were trying to avoid the loss of the slavery.

ezzler -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/19/2014 8:37:14 PM)
you think the US Navy would have out built the Royal Navy? you think the USA could have out built the British Empire ? you are Admiral Alfred Tirpitz and I claim my �5

AbwehrX -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/20/2014 2:54:49 AM)
quote: What they should have done was not leave the Union. Their excuse did not even hold water, the Congress and the Courts all sided with them on the fugitive slave issue. Lincoln did not have the power or connections to change slavery laws or the Constitution. The worst they were looking at was no more slave states. By leaving they created the very thing they were trying to avoid the loss of the slavery. If their concerns regarding the courts verdicts were resolved in their favor then slavery was not the reason the South seceded. Secession can be logical for a multitude of reasons such as tax issues, property rights, civil rights etc. Im still convinced that the South should have seceded from the North for reasons other than slavery and that their only chance was to use diplomacy as opposed to all out warfare to gain it.

Twotribes -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/20/2014 5:36:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AbwehrX quote: What they should have done was not leave the Union. Their excuse did not even hold water, the Congress and the Courts all sided with them on the fugitive slave issue. Lincoln did not have the power or connections to change slavery laws or the Constitution. The worst they were looking at was no more slave states. By leaving they created the very thing they were trying to avoid the loss of the slavery. If their concerns regarding the courts verdicts were resolved in their favor then slavery was not the reason the South seceded. Secession can be logical for a multitude of reasons such as tax issues, property rights, civil rights etc. Im still convinced that the South should have seceded from the North for reasons other than slavery and that their only chance was to use diplomacy as opposed to all out warfare to gain it. Slavery WAS the reason the South left the Union. Read their own State proclamations that list exactly that as the cause.

Alchenar -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/20/2014 1:07:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AbwehrX quote: What they should have done was not leave the Union. Their excuse did not even hold water, the Congress and the Courts all sided with them on the fugitive slave issue. Lincoln did not have the power or connections to change slavery laws or the Constitution. The worst they were looking at was no more slave states. By leaving they created the very thing they were trying to avoid the loss of the slavery. If their concerns regarding the courts verdicts were resolved in their favor then slavery was not the reason the South seceded. Secession can be logical for a multitude of reasons such as tax issues, property rights, civil rights etc. Im still convinced that the South should have seceded from the North for reasons other than slavery and that their only chance was to use diplomacy as opposed to all out warfare to gain it. I love hearing this vague assertion of vague 'economic and social reasons' why the South left because it's so utterly weak it reveals there must be some form of slavery apologism going on in the mind of the maker. Yeah the South had economic issues distinct from the North. Why? Because all their capital was tied up in human property rather than free to be invested in infrastructure and factories. Yeah the South had social issues distinct from the North. Why? Because when all manual labour is potentially done for free by slaves there are no jobs for the working class. All these problems the South had are obviously and directly connected to the issue of slavery. The South stayed in the Union for as long as it could dominate politics there (using the weight of votes the slave population gave it) and then the moment it became clear that was no longer sustainable to push slavery-friendly legislation through the Federal government they succeeded.

AbwehrX -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/20/2014 3:58:56 PM)
We're probably getting off topic debating over slavery but I dont believe the war was morally justified even though I oppose slavery. For decades the Union was guilty of theft & genocide of the Native Americans and they had no moral right to accuse anyone so if the South couldve recruited allies from Europe (or anywhere for that matter) then independence could have been achieved.

Yogi the Great -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/20/2014 4:48:51 PM)
Ah yes the old two wrongs make a right argument. [sm=00000622.gif]

AbwehrX -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/20/2014 5:24:03 PM)
quote: Ah yes the old two wrongs make a right argument. Secession isnt immoral. [:'(]

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.921875