- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 1/17/17 at 1:44 pm to Tigeralum2008
Civil war nerds are hilarious.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 1:50 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Man, some of y'all really view the Civil War through Confederate flag tinted sunglasses...
LOL
Every view is tinted. Even the view that the North was vastly superior. Remember when Trump was never going to be prez? Good times. No Northern tinted view there, huh?
Posted on 1/17/17 at 1:53 pm to TheTideMustRoll
The South had two major disadvantages, lack of industrial and man power. However, the South compensated for the lack of supplies and soldiers with superior military leadership, tactics, and a devastating battle kill/death ratio.
Three comprehensive reasons the South lost: 1) The North's successful implementation of a naval blockade. The South could not move outside of the Gulf of Mexico or receive any foreign aid. 2) Interception of Gen. Lee's plans to split the Army and invade the North. The Battle of Antietam was the resulting consequence and major turning point for the South. To make things worse the Northern Gen who capitalized was an idiot and POTUS Lincoln hated him. 3) The loss of New Orleans early on in the war keep western territories and Texas from providing massive military movement eastward. If any of you have seen some of the old southern forts along the coastal region of NOLA and SELA it really is mind boggling that they let the North get into the city and take control of the Miss. River.
The South was playing to win but failed to protect key tactical positions and execute the overall plan. The North had a very basic plan that was defensive and slow to develop but that was the point. In the end it turned out to be a blood bath where the North sought to prove a point.
The North's butt hurt was obvious when the winning governing party let General Sherman burn down half of the South.
Three comprehensive reasons the South lost: 1) The North's successful implementation of a naval blockade. The South could not move outside of the Gulf of Mexico or receive any foreign aid. 2) Interception of Gen. Lee's plans to split the Army and invade the North. The Battle of Antietam was the resulting consequence and major turning point for the South. To make things worse the Northern Gen who capitalized was an idiot and POTUS Lincoln hated him. 3) The loss of New Orleans early on in the war keep western territories and Texas from providing massive military movement eastward. If any of you have seen some of the old southern forts along the coastal region of NOLA and SELA it really is mind boggling that they let the North get into the city and take control of the Miss. River.
The South was playing to win but failed to protect key tactical positions and execute the overall plan. The North had a very basic plan that was defensive and slow to develop but that was the point. In the end it turned out to be a blood bath where the North sought to prove a point.
The North's butt hurt was obvious when the winning governing party let General Sherman burn down half of the South.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 2:17 pm to Doby
I don't mean to be rude, but there is a lot about your post that is incorrect.
The South had a clear leadership advantage in the Eastern theater only. Everywhere else, Southern leadership was markedly inferior to that of the North, in some cases to the point of incompetence. We remember Union generals like Pope as idiots because they were beaten by Lee, but that's a little unfair since Lee was a damned genius. Pope was a very effective general in the West. That's why he was put in command of the AoP in the first place. He just failed when he went up against the GoAT.
Your point #1 regarding the naval blockade is correct.
Your point #2 regarding the interception of Lee's orders is correct but not a "turning point for the South," unless you count the Emancipation Proclamation following Antietam as a turning point. Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, possibly the two biggest Southern victories of the entire war, were still in the future when Antietam was fought.
Your point #3 happened because of two things: horrible Southern leadership, as noted above, and the fact that the South simply did not have enough men to defend the entire border with the North plus the entire coastline, which they had to do because they had practically no Navy.
The North in no way fought a defensive war. The South did. The whole driving force behind the war (other than slavery) was that the the Southern states considered themselves to be fighting against an invading army. Marching their own armies into the north would have been a little hypocritical given that fact. That's why there was real debate over whether Lee's first foray north in 1862 should even take place. However, it was decided that it was worth the risk since the South had hopes that Maryland would secede if given the chance to do so.
The South had a clear leadership advantage in the Eastern theater only. Everywhere else, Southern leadership was markedly inferior to that of the North, in some cases to the point of incompetence. We remember Union generals like Pope as idiots because they were beaten by Lee, but that's a little unfair since Lee was a damned genius. Pope was a very effective general in the West. That's why he was put in command of the AoP in the first place. He just failed when he went up against the GoAT.
Your point #1 regarding the naval blockade is correct.
Your point #2 regarding the interception of Lee's orders is correct but not a "turning point for the South," unless you count the Emancipation Proclamation following Antietam as a turning point. Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, possibly the two biggest Southern victories of the entire war, were still in the future when Antietam was fought.
Your point #3 happened because of two things: horrible Southern leadership, as noted above, and the fact that the South simply did not have enough men to defend the entire border with the North plus the entire coastline, which they had to do because they had practically no Navy.
The North in no way fought a defensive war. The South did. The whole driving force behind the war (other than slavery) was that the the Southern states considered themselves to be fighting against an invading army. Marching their own armies into the north would have been a little hypocritical given that fact. That's why there was real debate over whether Lee's first foray north in 1862 should even take place. However, it was decided that it was worth the risk since the South had hopes that Maryland would secede if given the chance to do so.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 2:33 pm to TheTideMustRoll
Maybe if the Confederacy had strung together two or three demoralizing victories in 1862 before the mid-term elections, the Democrats would have gained control of the United States Congress and forced Lincoln to draw the Civil War to an early conclusion, leaving the Confederacy alone or allowed to come back into the Union but on their terms.
Also, maybe if the Confederates had gained international support from Britain and European powers in the same way that the Continental Army gained support from the French and Spaniards during the Revolution, that could have helped them.
But short of any of that, once Vicksburg fell and the Confederates were repelled at Gettysburg, it was too late. The Union had too much industrial might and a Civil War in full heat lasting longer than mid-1863 would inevitably lead to a Union victory.
Also, maybe if the Confederates had gained international support from Britain and European powers in the same way that the Continental Army gained support from the French and Spaniards during the Revolution, that could have helped them.
But short of any of that, once Vicksburg fell and the Confederates were repelled at Gettysburg, it was too late. The Union had too much industrial might and a Civil War in full heat lasting longer than mid-1863 would inevitably lead to a Union victory.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 7:08 pm to Doby
quote:
3) The loss of New Orleans early on in the war keep western territories and Texas from providing massive military movement eastward. If any of you have seen some of the old southern forts along the coastal region of NOLA and SELA it really is mind boggling that they let the North get into the city and take control of the Miss. River.
My gggreat grandfather fought in the battle at Forts Jackson and St. Phillip in 1862 as a confederate soldier. After three days the union fleet under Farragut was able to successfully run the gauntlet past the forts and up the Mississippi to New Orleans. Because from that position the federals could cut off supplies to the forts, the confederates were forced to abandon them. Fort Jackson was a quite impressive structure. It would have been an epic struggle to try to capture it by land.
My ancestor surrendered with General Duncan in Shreveport and was paroled at the end of hostilities. He said he was happy to return to his family in a newspaper article published in the N.O. State-Times in the 1920s.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 7:23 pm to TheTideMustRoll
History demonstrates that the answer is yes, if victory simply means a resolution to the war that allowed the Confederacy to survive as a separate state. Had Sherman not brilliantly rallied the Union right at Shiloh, had Beauregard started his attack there earlier, had Chamberlain not bravely held the left at Gettysburg with an unconventional bayonet charge, had Hood been able to maintain the defense of Atlanta as Union elections approached, had Grant been unable to break the siege of Chattanooga, had Seward not masterfully forestalled the intervention of foreign powers, had any of a hundred other things changed, the Confederacy could have persisted.
This post was edited on 1/17/17 at 7:48 pm
Posted on 1/17/17 at 7:31 pm to TheTideMustRoll
Is it constitutional for obama to say "the people are looking to Washington DC for answers and help"
The south said because of States rights what Obama said was not constitutional. But the victors rewrite history.
Even though the founding fathers didn't want the people to look to the centralized government for answers and help, that is what we are left with.
The south said because of States rights what Obama said was not constitutional. But the victors rewrite history.
Even though the founding fathers didn't want the people to look to the centralized government for answers and help, that is what we are left with.
This post was edited on 1/17/17 at 7:32 pm
Posted on 1/17/17 at 7:39 pm to TheTideMustRoll
This was another one where if the South had won the early battles things might have gone very differently.
The CSA was seriously threatening early on to march on DC and capture Union leadership. But they failed to get there. Once the North survived long enough to get industry going on a war footing plus an effective naval blockade, the outcome was not in doubt.
This is in stark contrast to Japan vs. USA during WW2. Here, Japan had no chance at all to change leadership in DC and was simply buying time against a superior opponent.
The CSA had a fleeting shot at winning early on, but Japan was done from the start.
The CSA was seriously threatening early on to march on DC and capture Union leadership. But they failed to get there. Once the North survived long enough to get industry going on a war footing plus an effective naval blockade, the outcome was not in doubt.
This is in stark contrast to Japan vs. USA during WW2. Here, Japan had no chance at all to change leadership in DC and was simply buying time against a superior opponent.
The CSA had a fleeting shot at winning early on, but Japan was done from the start.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 8:08 pm to TheTideMustRoll
I don't think there was any chance of an out & out South win- the only chance would be a North caving to criticism to just end the war.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 8:14 pm to TheTideMustRoll
Lee doesn't get the shits at Gettysburg and game over
This post was edited on 1/17/17 at 8:15 pm
Posted on 1/17/17 at 8:47 pm to JETigER
It's an interesting question. I do believe the South was correct in making a stand for states' rights. Unfortunately for them and us, they picked the absolute worst possible issue to make that stand about. From a historical vantage, slavery is so abhorrent that it obliterates anything else they might have been trying to say.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 9:09 pm to TheTideMustRoll
If Stonewall isn't shot by his own men, the South would have won. He was the thorn in the side of the Union.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:17 pm to jacquespene8
What would Jackson have done that would have won the war for the South? What more could he have done than he had already to that point? I say it again: if the Union didn't seek a peace after Chancellorsville, they were never going to do so. And they never would have, because they were dominating the war in the West. For all his genius, Lee could never have won the war for the South because Braxton Bragg was better at losing than Lee was at winning - and that is no small feat.
Posted on 1/18/17 at 1:43 am to TheTideMustRoll
quote:
What would Jackson have done that would have won the war for the South?
Jackson was an artist at warfare. The Union wasn't mentally prepared for him. He struck in surprise, and fought vigorously, until the enemy was routed or until his corps was tired
Almost without exception military tacticians state that if he had been in command, rather than Longstreet, Lee wins at Gettysburg
Posted on 1/18/17 at 2:30 am to HooDooWitch
quote:
quote: Bevin Alexander Has an interesting argument the they could have quote: Jackson believed invading the eastern states from Baltimore to Maine could divide and cripple the Union, forcing surrender, but failed to convince Confederate president Jefferson Davis or General Robert E. Lee. I wasn't interested in the Civil War when I was young. This was the first book recommended to me. I'm looking for more if y'all have any recommendations.
Kinda crazy you being that up as I literally just started this book tonight after seeing it at the book store the other day and thought it looked good, had never heard of it. Like it so far
As far as recommendations, "Lee's Last Campaign" by Clifford Dowdy is a GREAT book about 1864 (last days of the war) and the battles of the wilderness. Really focuses on the cat and mouse game between grant/Lee during that year and leaves an amazing impression of Lee. The way he avoided Grant for so long with so little when Grant had so many resources is a true display of military genius
If Lee had somehow been able to command the entire Confederate army for the duration of the war I have little doubt the south would have "won"
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News