General Discussion

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,708 posts)

18. TY For The Clarification

Reply to JVS (Reply #12)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 04:46 PM

Nov 2012

Twenty two years is a long time.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Civil War Question [View all] DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 OP

Probably. SheilaT Nov 2012 #1

The South was doomed from the start maxrandb Nov 2012 #23

They had some pretty lousy generals, too Art_from_Ark Nov 2012 #47

can you explain these economic policies that are similar? brokechris Nov 2012 #50

A couple of examples maxrandb Nov 2012 #65

"Low" commitment to public education doesn't even come close. One state even outlawed public ed. ieoeja Nov 2012 #30

The South was doomed from the start Drale Nov 2012 #2

Weren't The French Every Bit Anti-Slavery As Great Britain DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #3

I'm not quite sure but Drale Nov 2012 #5

Actually, the French tried. Their intent to aid the CSA ended on Cinco de Mayo. ieoeja Nov 2012 #32

The British ruling class DID NOT detest slavery, but the British industrial working class sure as coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #43

Wait. Le Taz Hot Nov 2012 #62

Yes, the South was doomed from the start RomneyLies Nov 2012 #4

Funny. Was it Lincoln didn't have decent generals, or a decent leader of generals. bluestate10 Nov 2012 #25

The single biggest mistake of the Civil War can be summed up in a single name RomneyLies Nov 2012 #29

6-1 against Lee. Retreated 6 times anyway. And stopped at the Virginia border with Lee routed. ieoeja Nov 2012 #33

And despite the South's huge agricultural output, Aristus Nov 2012 #6

The question is absurd on its surface, as hindsight coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #7

Ken Burns Made The Argument. I'm Just Echoing It./nt DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #10

Actually, I think it was Shelby Foote thucythucy Nov 2012 #26

Its military could hardly have fought a guerilla non-conventional war in any coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #38

Your point on the "slaveocracy" is well taken thucythucy Nov 2012 #40

Shelby Foote indulges in a species of the logical coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #36

There is one big problem with your thesis. bluestate10 Nov 2012 #11

This message was self-deleted by its author DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #15

Didn't Lincoln Sack McClellan For Lack Of Aggression DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #16

Yes, Lincoln fired McClellan when he failed to pursue coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #37

Before Washington fell to the Army of Northern Virginia, chances are that the North would coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #35

I believe it was Shelby Foote who was arguing that in the documentary. JVS Nov 2012 #8

I Could Be Wrong But I Thought I Remember It From The PBS Special By Ken Burns In 1990 DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #9

Shelby Foote was the historian interviewed who said that the North had one hand behind its back JVS Nov 2012 #12

TY For The Clarification DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #18

Shelby Foote was EVERYWHERE in the film Brother Buzz Nov 2012 #14

And James McPherson--a far more progressive historian-- thucythucy Nov 2012 #27

Foote is the better writer, imo, but McPherson is the better historian (and coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #42

South was doomed, only lasted as long as it did because South had better generals at first. yellowcanine Nov 2012 #13

I don't think that they were doomed flood99999 Nov 2012 #17

I agree DearAbby Nov 2012 #34

The handwriting was on the wall when New Orleans fell. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2012 #19

Um, excuse me, what battles did Grant lose? I can't think of any offhand. He coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #39

The Wilderness and Cold Harbor to name 2. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2012 #46

"Loss" is a loaded term to describe the outcome of either battle, as Grant was pursuing coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #52

Which is what I said. He lost (battles) but won the war. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2012 #63

The general strategy was established very early on by General Winfield Scott. His coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #64

It all depended on how willing the North was to wage the war to its conclusion. Kaleva Nov 2012 #20

As per Paul kennedy in Rise and Fall of the Great Powers... LanternWaste Nov 2012 #21

Another factor which i've never seen discussed in this context is that the South was hedgehog Nov 2012 #22

Good Point flood99999 Nov 2012 #24

The South was doomed as long as Are_grits_groceries Nov 2012 #28

Yes. If Grant had been the North's primary general from the start, the war never would have lasted aaaaaa5a Nov 2012 #31

Oh, please. I can bash McClellan with the best of them, but the Army of the Potomac coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #41

I had a very knowledgeable civil war historian tell me that Lincoln aaaaaa5a Nov 2012 #44

I must take issue with the first statement of your second paragraph. I know of no historian coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #51

Atlanta ThoughtCriminal Nov 2012 #45

Certainly they were. OTOH there is a very good argument made that it would have been Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #48

That is a specious argument (no offense) and does not give credit to the quasi-mystical coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #57

"Given British and French demand for Southern cotton," the South was exhausing its land. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #58

The South could have won davidn3600 Nov 2012 #49

Well, your argument is belied by the fact of Lincoln's re-election in 1864 and by morale coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #55

Yes, the North had the better soldiers and generals graham4anything Nov 2012 #53

You might want to review your history a little bit, specifically the coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #54

to use a parallel with today graham4anything Nov 2012 #56

At Chancellorsville, Stonewall Jackson successfully attacked Hooker's exposed coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #59

Jackson's flank attack wrecked the XI Corps NoPasaran Nov 2012 #61

Since the Confederacy DID lose, the answer is yes. WinkyDink Nov 2012 #60