- 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
re: Did the South ever really have a chance (Civil War)?
Posted on 7/18/22 at 4:18 pm to BuckyCheese
Posted on 7/18/22 at 4:18 pm to BuckyCheese
quote:
Rhett was right.
Rhett Butler's speech at the outbreak of war was largely taken from a conversation between the first superintendent of LSU, WT Sherman, to who would become LSU's first president, David Boyd:
In a 24 Dec 1860 conversation with David Boyd, one of his professors at the Louisiana Seminary [which would later become LSU] regarding South Carolina's secession, Sherman is reported to have said:
"You, you the people of the South, believe there can be such a thing as peaceable secession. You don't know what you are doing. I know there can be no such thing. ... If you will have it, the North must fight you for its own preservation. Yes, South Carolina has by this act precipitated war. ... This country will be drenched in blood. God only knows how it will end. Perhaps the liberties of the whole country, of every section and every man will be destroyed, and yet you know that within the Union no man's liberty or property in all the South is endangered. ... Oh, it is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization. ... You people speak so lightly of war. You don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing. I know you are a brave, fighting people, but for every day of actual fighting, there are months of marching, exposure and suffering. More men die in war from sickness than are killed in battle. At best war is a frightful loss of life and property, and worse still is the demoralization of the people. ...
"You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people, but an earnest people and will fight too, and they are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it.
"Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The Northern people not only greatly outnumber the whites at the South, but they are a mechanical people with manufactures of every kind, while you are only agriculturists--a sparse population covering a large extent of territory, and in all history no nation of mere agriculturists ever made successful war against a nation of mechanics. ...
"The North can make a steam-engine, locomotive or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical and determined people on earth--right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all els eyou are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with.
"At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, and shut out from the markets of Europe by blockade as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. ... if your people would but stop and think, they must see that in the end you will surely fail."
Posted on 7/18/22 at 4:36 pm to doubleb
quote:
I will have to bone up on Second Bull Run.
It's probably the closest Lee ever came to his dream of a single battle of decision and the capture of an entire enemy army.
Posted on 7/18/22 at 4:53 pm to greenbean
quote:
No one should hold Jefferson Davis/Robert E Lee out as heros. They got a lot of poor people killed in an unwinnable “rich mans” war.
So it was the 19th century version of the Vietnam war?
Posted on 7/18/22 at 7:00 pm to SaintlyTiger88
Although the South lost the war, in some ways they won the PR/propaganda battle after it. Once reconstruction was over they established the lost cause narrative. They instituted share cropping in place of slavery. They used poll taxes, literacy tests, etc to ensure elections went like they wanted, they controlled the judicial systems,
Posted on 7/18/22 at 7:37 pm to SaintlyTiger88
Winning for the South meant convincing the Northern populace that the war wasnt worth it. Up until July 1863, it was extremely possible.
If Lee won Gettysburg, again very possible, Southern victory and a probable Lincoln electoral loss in 64 were both likely. McClellan's platform was to sue for peace. As late as early summer 1864, most thought Lincoln was going to lose (including Lincoln). Grant and Sherman ensured his victory by winning on the battlefield.
If Lee won Gettysburg, again very possible, Southern victory and a probable Lincoln electoral loss in 64 were both likely. McClellan's platform was to sue for peace. As late as early summer 1864, most thought Lincoln was going to lose (including Lincoln). Grant and Sherman ensured his victory by winning on the battlefield.
Posted on 7/18/22 at 7:57 pm to OweO
quote:
So it was the 19th century version of the Vietnam war?
most wars are "rich man's" wars. Even "religious" wars
Posted on 7/18/22 at 8:19 pm to SaintlyTiger88
The South never had a chance and anyone with half a brain would have know this before the first shot was fired.
Posted on 7/18/22 at 9:24 pm to Tbobby
quote:
The South never had a chance and anyone with half a brain would have know this before the first shot was fired.
Same applies to Americans in Revolutionary War, Haiti in Haitian Revolution, Viet Cong/North Vietnam in Vietnam War, Afghanis in Soviet occupation, Taliban in US/Afghan War, etc etc etc. Of course the South could have won if a few things went differently.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News