The sum of Davis is not just the civil war
Originally Posted by Rick Keating
The great man has a lot of pre-Civil War history under his belt, including an American Presidency. Perhaps more than Lincoln. I think they need to add another Lincoln statue out there, one with him in bed with his male friends.
Rob Hayhurst
9th Texas Co. C
1st Mo Bn/trans-miss bde
formerly 61st Va.
It's amazing - just amazing.
Michael Comer
Linear time is a matter of perspective. 4 years was a lot longer time 140+ years ago. By that, I mean if the WBTS happened today, the Federal government would have struck down the insurrection within 30 to 90 days, if it had been able to get off the ground at all. Remember, we can move entire divisions of troops, equipment and supplies halfway around the world in a matter of hours. How long did it take to move men, wagons, and artillery back then? I don't want this to sound like one of those "If they would have had nukes at Gettysburg, they would have used 'em" threads, because that is not how it is intended by any means.
Your Obedient Servant;
Ben Lenchner
Pvt.
Co. A, 97th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry
Not all of these were the advantages that you make them out to be plus you are ignoring some definite advantages the North had.That is Lost Cause mythology. The United States was at a distinct disadvantage from the beginning. The Confederacy had every advantage which they threw away:
1) Home field advantage
2) Internal lines of communication and transportation
3) A long coastline that was almost impossible to blockade
4) A plethora of West Point educated officers
5) An abundance of cheap slave labor
6) French and English sympathy if not out-right recognition
First, while on paper it may have looked like the South had the advantage of internal lines of communications, in reality that was not the case for several reasons. The South did not have the number of railroads and overall miles of railroads that the North nor did it have the rolling stock of the North. Furthermore, the Northern rails were mostly of a standard gauge while the Southern rails were of a variety of gauges. Only in Virginia could the South take advantage of interior lines to move troops and supplies more quickly than the North. In the West, the Union controlled the Ohio River, control of which was never threatened by the South, and had far superior rails. Furthermore, it was far easier for the Union to move troops and supplies back and forth between the Eastern and Western theaters - something that was done fairly regularly. The only time the South tried such a transport was when the South moved two divisions of Longstreet's corps to reinforce Bragg. That move required transporting the divisions all the way through North Carolina and Atlanta and having to unload and reload the trains at least once because of different gauges in the railroads. Consequently, at the start of the battle of Chickamauga, Longstreet had his two divisions of infantry but had not received his battalion of artillery nor did he have his trains and horses. Finally, because of her limited industrial base and mineral resources, the South did not have the ability to fight a war and adequately maintain her rolling stock and rails.
As far as the coastline, yes it was long but there were not that many major ports (1 - 2 dozen). Furthermore, because of the Outer Banks, all shipping in and out of North Carolina has to go through one or two choke points that could be easily patrolled. The South had no blue water navy nor the means or expertise to build one while the Union started with the full U.S. Navy and quickly captured Norfolk VA, the only ship building base within Confederate boundaries. Thus the Confederates never had the ability to truly challenge whatever stranglehold the Union tried to use the interdict her shipping. All she could do is rely on fast ships that could slip through.
As far as the French and British, I am not sure that the South truly had their sympathy. Yes, both countries enjoyed their trade of cotton with the South but, as the Confederacy learned the hard way, there were other sources of cotton in the world. Furthermore, the war opened up a new trade - the sale of surplus weapons and munitions to both sides of the conflict. Furthermore, the British could sale ships to the South that would be the basis for her blue water navy. I suspect that the "sympathy" was more a matter of both countries wanting to see the war prolonged as long as possible in order to maximize their war profiteering. Furthermore, with a divided America, both countries had a better chance of recovering lands lost in the America's during the last 100 years. What appeared to be sympathy to the South, IMHO, was merely the European powers maximizing their war profits while ridding themselves of surplus ordnance while keeping all their overall political options open for future development.
Here are some major advantages that the North had that you did not address:
1) most of the manufacturing capability of the nation before it split
2) a much larger population pool from which to pull military manpower. Furthermore this pool was actually growing at a significant rate through immigration while the South had little to no immigration to augment her smaller pool.
3) the North had a much larger number of active coal mines and a much large reserve of easily available coal from which to increase her production. At this time, coal was the source of energy used in all railroad travel, much of the non-blue water navy, and the majority of manufacturing processes. The North had the energy resources to greatly expand all these processes to a greater extent than the South did.
4) in terms of financing a war, the North had almost all the active sources of new precious metals (gold and silver) with which to back their expansion of the currency levels and loans/purchases from foreign governments while the South basically had to rely on credit and a currency with no true basis of actual worth.
Last edited by thpritchett; 08-16-2008 at 01:30 PM.
I couldn't have articulated those points any better, Tom.
So did Benedict Arnold and see how he get treated by American History.
Treason is Treason and there is no way around it.
M. S. Maranto
It is hardly treason when the right of secession was being taught at West Point. Jefferson Davis was there between 1824-1828. During this time, William Rawle's View of the Constitution was used as a textbook, which acknowledged the right of secession.
Terry from Occupied Baltimore
"As I stood upon the very scene of that conflict, I could not but contrast my position with his, forty-seven years before. The flag which he had then so proudly hailed, I saw waving at the same place over the victims of as vulgar and brutal a despotism as modern times have witnessed."
Francis Key Howard, Ft. McHenry 1861
From the many discussions on this forum, I think that it can be established that in the 1860's there was not a clear consensus one way or another on the right of a state to secede from the Union. However, his ordering the firing on U.S. troops and the flag at Ft. Sumter, that is a different argument for which I have no ready answer.Treason is Treason and there is no way around it.
West Point and William Rawles weren't the Federal government. If the Supreme Court had ruled that secession was a right enjoyed by the States, you might have something to stand on.
Yours, &c.,
Guy N. 'Frenchie' LaFrance
National Congress of Old West Shootists, Grand Army of the Frontier
Vous pouvez voir par mes vêtements que je ne suis pas un cowboy.
But they do illustrate that the issue of whether or not states had the right to secede was not yet a settled question one way or another.West Point and William Rawles weren't the Federal government.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks