Have to disagree with the late Mr. Foote here, and I do so with trepidation as his knowledge of the Civil War was unsurpassed. The South was never going to beat the North, but it didn’t have to. It only had to outlast the North, to convince the North through loss of blood and treasure that the effort to preserve the Union through war simply was not worth it. The South came so close to doing so in August 1864 that Lincoln at a cabinet meeting had this signed by each of the members of his cabinet:
Executive Mansion
Washington, Aug 23, 1864.
This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he can not possibly save it afterwards.
A. Lincoln
[Endorsed on Reverse:]
William H Seward
W. P. Fessenden
Edwin M Stanton
Gideon Welles
Edwd. Bates
M Blair
J. P. Usher
August 23. 1864.
The Civil War was a near run thing which could easily, oh so easily, have had a much different outcome.
Donald
Several years ago I visited the Chickamauga Battlefield National Park and had an interesting conversation with one of the Park Rangers. The ranger told about a book he had read about the changing demographics of the Confederacy during the war.
The book claimed that those driving the war from the Confederacy at the wars’s origin were younger and viewed the war as an opportunity to gain wealth and prestige. They did not own land but thought that if slavery was expanded they could get wealthy starting a plantation. Most from this group were killed or had their zealotry tempered early into the war.
Those fighting for the Confederacy later in the war were conscripts or those who just wanted to resist the North’s invasion. It seems very logical that this group would follow the strategy of changing the war from expansion to attrition hoping that the invading armies would withdraw.
Perhaps this demonstrates the brilliance of Clausewitz advocating for maximum effort early in a war to quickly secure the political objectives then seek con session from the defeated and avoid a prolonged war of attrition that drained resources with diminishing gains.
Please change my statement
It seems very logical that this group would follow the strategy of changing the war from expansion to attrition hoping that the invading armies would withdraw.
What I should have written is:
It seems very logical that this group would follow the strategy of changing the war from the goal of expanding slavery, to a war of attrition hoping that the invading armies would withdraw.
The volunteers of 1861 on both sides tended to be motivated by patriotism and adventure. The Confederacy went with conscription in 1862 with everyone in the military locked in for the duration. The Confederacy had by the end of the War had some 75-85 percent of its white male population between 15-55 serving in the military, a feat unequaled in American history. By the end the Confederacy was robbing both the cradle and the grave to fill its armies, and having so much of its manpower in the military had a substantial negative impact on the Confederate economy.
Donald
Amazing statistics that have profound influence when looking at many aspects of the South during and after the war.
One year after the war 20 percent of the state’s budget in Mississippi
was taken up by purchasing artificial limbs for their veterans.
The sorts of things discussed in this thread, and their sources, ought to be required reading for the morons polluting conservative news sites with calls for civil war these days. As you have pointed out here more than once, Don, they have no idea what they are advocating.
What about the morons on all the liberal msm sites, networks, print organs, who are counting on the fact that nobody wants another war? You really want to roll over for them because you don’t want to see 20% of the state budget go towards prosthetics?
Serious question, in spite of the sarcasm. We’re way into the liberty for security trade-off at this point. We don’t have security (or only have as much as the Left will allow; witness Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, Kenosha, etc. etc.) and what we’re talking about is ease, or comfort, or the hope that we’ll be left in peace –until, that is, we’re not.
Trump may not invoke the Insurrection Act. But I guaran-damn-tee you that the next Republic President will have to. Because the take-away for the Left from this four year election cycle (2016-2020) is that violence works, and that Republican administrations are inherently illegitimate and needs must be opposed with violence.
As far as I can see, short of the Second Coming, the only way out of this is Article V.
And I expect that to be bloody.
And for the record, just to be clear, I am not calling for civil war, or protest, or violence of any kind.
What I am calling for is to make for-damn sure that whatever the Left starts, we finish.
After all, why do you think Lincoln let South Carolina know that he intended to resupply Fort Sumter?
“By the end the Confederacy was robbing both the cradle and the grave to fill its armies,”
Another reason why the Leftist push to eradicate every trace of the Confederacy and write off everyone who fought for it as irredeemably evil is so dangerous — it ignores the real reasons most individuals fought, not necessarily to “protect slavery” but to keep their homes and families from being destroyed, or simply because they weren’t given a choice to fight or not.
The same goes for other wars — I despise communism and Naziism as much as anyone but I don’t for a minute believe that EVERY German or Russian soldier who fought in WWII did so for evil motives. I have a distant relative by marriage who was drafted into the German army late in WWII when he was about 16 or 17 years old. He later emigrated to the US and married one of my mom’s cousins. My dad, a WWII veteran, met him several times at family gatherings and they got along fine, they even used to joke that they might have shot at one another the first time they met!
Ernst, just because I said that people rather blindly advocating for another civil war are morons (and nearly all of them are) doesn’t mean I favor “rolling over”. A serious response to the blatant theft of this election is obviously necessary. And we should arm ourselves to protect against leftist violence. But how many of those twittering fools out there have any idea what armed conflict in America between (mostly) Americans would really mean? Extremely few, I would confidently say. And that is what I am condemning here.
it ignores the real reasons most individuals fought, not necessarily to “protect slavery” but to keep their homes and families from being destroyed, or simply because they weren’t given a choice to fight or not.
Yeah. Slavery was clearly the cause of the War, but most Confederate fighting men were too poor to ever own a slave. They fought for a variety of reasons, most notably patriotism. One Confederate pow summed it up when asked by his Union captors why he was fighting: “Because you are down here!”
Bruce Catton’s comments always come to mind:
“There is no other legend quite like the legend of the Confederate fighting man. He reached the end of his haunted road long ago. He fought for a star-crossed cause and in the end he was beaten, but as he carried his slashed red battle flag into the dusky twilight of the Lost Cause he marched straight into a legend that will live as long as the American people care to remember anything about the American past.”
I recall reading an article before the recent election that part of the Democrats plan to “never concede the election to Trump” included a plan for some major liberal cities to threaten secession from the nation.
I still support fighting with Trump to the bitter end and beyond if he fails to retain office because of proven fraud. I also have great confidence that if Biden does succeed his victory will be pyrrhic. He is very capable of failing so spectacularly that the next presidential election may greatly favor those opposing him.
If a constitutional conservative populist movement is able to restore election integrity and win big in the next election; perhaps the Democrats will threaten session. If so no one should oppose letting them go, but leaving should be done at by counties rather then by states.