Results 1 to 6 of 6

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

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    3,016

    Default Re: Articles on the Civil war- The Winner Writes the History!

    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.

    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.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln


    Four stage strategy from Yes, Minister:
    Stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
    Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
    Stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
    Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Articles on the Civil war- The Winner Writes the History!

    Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
    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

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO