Articles on the Civil war- The Winner Writes the History!

Various articles published in History is Now Magazine

Causes of Southern Secession in the U.S. Civil War - The Upper South
http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/...he-upper-south

Was Southern Secession and the U.S. Civil War Fought to Preserve Slavery?
https://www.historyisnowmagazine.com...eserve-slavery

Was the U.S. Civil War Fought for Slavery or States’ Rights?
http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/...-states-rights

The Confederate Constitution and the U.S. Civil War
http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/...e-us-civil-war

Abraham Lincoln and White Supremacy
http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/...hite-supremacy


African Americans who supported the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War
https://www.historyisnowmagazine.com...e-us-civil-war

Want to know more about these subjects and many other topics? Get the book- Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War
https://www.amazon.com/Defending-Dix.../dp/B0C1J3J6Z6

My latest article published in History Is Now Magazine explores the various ways Southern blacks contributed to the Confederacy, including serving as soldiers.

African Americans who supported the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War
https://www.historyisnowmagazine.com...e-us-civil-war

It was not what you assume
How the North and South Treated Minorities During the U.S. Civil War By Jeb Smith.

https://www.historyisnowmagazine.com...e-us-civil-war

My latest article argues that Gettysburg was a draw or only a minor defeat for the South; it was neither the high watermark for the Confederacy nor the turning of the tide for the American Civil War.
http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/...he-confederacy

Just read your article on Gettysburg and would say I disagree on the conclusion. Bear in mind I am by no means a Civil War specialist.

Quote:

---

Loss?

Others say the South lost the war at Gettysburg; I don't see how this is so. Gettysburg, combined with Vicksburg, was a big blow to Southern manpower. However, it could also be argued the South was already finished when Stonewall Jackson died. But still, regardless of Jackson and the results of Gettysburg and Vicksburg, Lincoln was not likely to be reelected (Peace Democrats would have triumphed) until General Sherman captured Atlanta and Jubal Early (who was making headlines) was defeated in the Shenandoah Valley. Those events, along with Admiral Farragut’s earlier triumph at Mobile Bay, secured Lincoln's reelection and won the war for the North, not Gettysburg. The high casualties of 1864 and battles like Gettysburg (union losses of 23,000) almost cost the Union the war, and the people of the North desired peace, until new Union victories restored popular morale.

---

I think you're putting the defeat of the South primarily in the reelection chances of Lincoln which is essentially arguing that they didn't have the ability to win anyhow. Even if 'Peace Democrats' had won, negotiating a ceasefire and peace after so much bloodshed would have been extremely difficult as too many Northern states would be unwilling to let the South still go or keep slavery after so long a struggle.

Gettysburg was the end of any strategic offensives by the South and was therefore the end of its ability to try and make peace on favorable terms. From the loss of Gettysburg on it was just a matter of how much more blood would need to be spilled before the South would capitulate and with the North generally on the Offensive from 1864 on the war was done for the South.

I look at it similar to Kursk in 1943, the German Eastern front didn't collapse following the loss there, however they no longer were in control of their destiny. Offensive victory was now nearly impossible and trying to achieve a good defense and perhaps stale that leads to peace was their only option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

Just read your article on Gettysburg and would say I disagree on the conclusion. Bear in mind I am by no means a Civil War specialist.



I think you're putting the defeat of the South primarily in the reelection chances of Lincoln which is essentially arguing that they didn't have the ability to win anyhow. Even if 'Peace Democrats' had won, negotiating a ceasefire and peace after so much bloodshed would have been extremely difficult as too many Northern states would be unwilling to let the South still go or keep slavery after so long a struggle.

Gettysburg was the end of any strategic offensives by the South and was therefore the end of its ability to try and make peace on favorable terms. From the loss of Gettysburg on it was just a matter of how much more blood would need to be spilled before the South would capitulate and with the North generally on the Offensive from 1864 on the war was done for the South.

I look at it similar to Kursk in 1943, the German Eastern front didn't collapse following the loss there, however they no longer were in control of their destiny. Offensive victory was now nearly impossible and trying to achieve a good defense and perhaps stale that leads to peace was their only option.

---

Great post, thanks for reading