Was it worth it?

[genbeau]

In the end, No. The Confederacy choosing war ultimately lost more rights, property, and lives for said States. The loss placed them far behind the curve of advancement for the latter half of the 19th century.

Thats an excellent demonstration of a lack of courage. That did not exist in the south, propably the north however.

 

[Hammons]

Is this to argue things to argue? Because you are arguing things that have been argued. Mind you the argument has seen different arguments in different times and dates.

Anything new?

 

[Hammons]

Or.. have you spun into a intellectual conundrum of each other's facts to where everyone perpetually refutes the other.

What if I chose to word this post differently? Was my post worth it? Without opinion on any front. Can you answer the question "Was it worth it" ?

 

[Hammons]

No you cannot without sourcing at best 1st hand material then 2nd from there 3rd. See a pattern.

Then you have opinions.. then opinions.. then those opinions with education. Then amateur metal detectectors.. Then those who were just curious about things..

Great but no attempt to combine everyone's knowledge into a working document.

Why so serious

 

[Hammons]

You have the same issue. There is no viable outcome in your question only opinions

 

[Scottish Rebel]

Is this to argue things to argue? Because you are arguing things that have been argued. Mind you the argument has seen different arguments in different times and dates.

Anything new?

Yeah,I'm thinking about inviting Old Soldier out for a pint and some arm wrasslin.
Think we might fall out about a few things though.

 

[CW Buff]

You may disagree and say the south could still have won because of X, Y, and Z, but then…aren't you really the one engaging in what ifs? After all, the south really did lose, and it wasn't even that close.

How do Ninth Ohio, don't think we've talked before.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with much of what you say. Frist, saying there is no way the Confederates could have won is every bit as much a hypothetical as saying the Confederates could have won if X, Y, or Z. And while the ACW did unfold the way it did, and end the way it did, it also began when it began. It seems a bit disingenuous to engage in one what if...

So my question was simply, was there a point between 1790 and 1860 where the southern states never had a greater chance for a successful gambit toward secession? Was 1861 the zenith of their hopes? Or was it earlier, before international relations, northern immigration and westward expansion began to sour the view on slavery? 1810? 1830? 1850?

...and then dismiss someone else's because it deviates from what really did happen.

But the idea that the ACW wasn't that close is untenable. I don't think you've fully assessed the 1864 presidential election as seen by the people who lived through it. Had Sherman not taken Atlanta prior to the election, Lincoln would have likely lost to McClellan, and then all bets are off. This hypothetical has the benefit of having been a very real and significant concern to the people who lived through it. If you just throw hindsight at it, you can't understand why they did what they did.

As Einstein said, "It is the theory which decides what can be observed." If you theory is too narrow, and built upon false assumptions, it has little hope of being worth a dang. In the case of history, historians can do research and easily tell us what happened, but historians can only analyze history if they consider the what if's. Without the what if, the fall of Atlanta becomes no more important than any other Union victory (i.e. all the ones you can't even remember because the what if is more of a so what).

 

[CW Buff]

1. The Confederacy could never have won.
2. It probably took a war, with US war ships sailing into all the Confederate harbors, and US soldiers and troopers marching through and riding over the Confederacy to prove that the government had the technology and the money to govern.
3. The late Mr. Foote was not a lost causer. He probably read extensively in newspapers and magazines published during the Civil War and he knew how lightly the war sat on most areas of the north. Shelby Foote told stories. But his stories were based on his knowledge and his reading.
4. Once the EP was accepted in Europe, and once the US pincher movement was completed on the Mississippi River, the US had won. The fact that the killing and dying went on does not imply the Confederacy could have won.

Which is it, "1. The Confederacy could never have won," or "4. Once the EP was accepted in Europe, and once the US pincher movement was completed on the Mississippi River, the US had won [IOW, mid-1863]?"

The surest sign that you're mistaken is the fact that virtually no contemporary Unionist would have agreed with your timing. A year after your point of inevitable victory, virtually every Republican (if not absolutely all of them) either felt the result was far from guaranteed, or believed they were about to lose an election which, in the balance, held the fate of the war itself. This included Lincoln:

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.
LINCOLN

Clearly the armchair presidents here are relying on hindsight to predict the end of the war. Is there any historian that agrees with this idea that the war was essentially done after the EP/Vicksburg? I know there are many who believe things were far from certain in August 1864.

"Lincoln expected George B. McClellan to be the next president. McClellan was the most popular Democrat and the most powerful symbol of opposition to Lincoln's war policies. . . . McClellan himself reportedly told a St. Louis businessman on August 24: 'If I am elected, I will recommend an immediate armistice and a call for a convention of all the states and insist upon exhausting all and every means to secure peace without further bloodshed.' " And regarding the Democratic platform peace plank drafted by Lincoln's old friend Vallandigham, "This crucial resolution made peace the first priority and Union a distant second." -- James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, pp. 771-72.

 

[wausaubob]

Which is it, "1. The Confederacy could never have won," or "4. Once the EP was accepted in Europe, and once the US pincher movement was completed on the Mississippi River, the US had won [IOW, mid-1863]?"

The surest sign that you're mistaken is the fact that virtually no contemporary Unionist would have agreed with your timing. A year after your point of inevitable victory, virtually every Republican (if not absolutely all of them) either felt the result was far from guaranteed, or believed they were about to lose an election which, in the balance, held the fate of the war itself. This included Lincoln:

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.
LINCOLN

Clearly the armchair presidents here are relying on hindsight to predict the end of the war. Is there any historian that agrees with this idea that the war was essentially done after the EP/Vicksburg? I know there are many who believe things were far from certain in August 1864.

"Lincoln expected George B. McClellan to be the next president. McClellan was the most popular Democrat and the most powerful symbol of opposition to Lincoln's war policies. . . . McClellan himself reportedly told a St. Louis businessman on August 24: 'If I am elected, I will recommend an immediate armistice and a call for a convention of all the states and insist upon exhausting all and every means to secure peace without further bloodshed.' " And regarding the Democratic platform peace plank drafted by Lincoln's old friend Vallandigham, "This crucial resolution made peace the first priority and Union a distant second." -- James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, pp. 771-72.

And the President was wrong. Just as many people thought Grant was stuck in Mississippi in April 1863 and should have been relieved, suddenly his army had crossed the Mississippi River and occupied a third Confederate state capital.
If you want to write an accurate post, tell the rest of the story.

 

[uaskme]

And the President was wrong. Just as many people thought Grant was stuck in Mississippi in April 1863 and should have been relieved, suddenly his army had crossed the Mississippi River and occupied a third Confederate state capital.
If you want to write an accurate post, tell the rest of story.

What difference does it make to what you believe now, verses what was believed during the period? It is called present ism. Founding cornerstone of Northern ism. "President was wrong"? Also heard it explained, he said something stupid. So, where our bias doesn't conform to our narrative, it is dismissed. North won so nothing else matters and is irrelevant.

Took Grant a year to conquer Vicksburg. Probably someone smarter could have done it sooner. After 1st Corinth a good example.

Guess the biggest sin of the Confederates. Didn't have the Internet.

 

[CW Buff]

And the President was wrong. Just as many people thought Grant was stuck in Mississippi in April 1863 and should have been relieved, suddenly his army had crossed the Mississippi River and occupied a third Confederate state capital.
If you want to write an accurate post, tell the rest of story.

Sorry my friend, but I call 'hindsight," and you give more hindsight masquerading as foresight. It should also be readily apparent that Grant's problems at Vicksburg in 1863 is not "the rest of story" regarding the situation in 1864. And if anything, your addendum proves my point, not yours. Without hindsight, you have uncertainty. The people who thought Grant was stuck were wrong because Grant got unstuck. We know that now, but "many people" did not know it would happen before it happened. What you don't seem to get is that, had you been there at the time, you would have been among the "many people" more often than not. You don't have any unusual powers of perception, or at least I've seen no evidence of such.

I didn't rest my case on Lincoln alone. I rested it on...

virtually every Republican (if not absolutely all of them)

I can give you more of them if you'd like, but first I'm going to need at least one primary source indicating that anyone held an opinion contrary to Lincoln's. Of course he was wrong, we know that NOW, we could NOT have known that THEN (August 23, 1864). THAT is accurate, not to mention common sense.

Also missing is any quote from any historian supporting your assertions, as also previously requested. Heck, we have yet to find out if you've settled on "ever" vs. July 1863 yet.

 

[CW Buff]

No you cannot without sourcing at best 1st hand material then 2nd from there 3rd. See a pattern.

Then you have opinions.. then opinions.. then those opinions with education. Then amateur metal detectectors.. Then those who were just curious about things..

Great but no attempt to combine everyone's knowledge into a working document.

Hello Hammons

Opinions, arguments, perpetual refutations, amateurs? It almost sounds like a forum. Hard to to combine contradictions though, they're so, contradictory.

Why so serious

Not sure if this where that came from, but Heath Ledger, BEST Joker ever.

Is this to argue things to argue? Because you are arguing things that have been argued. Mind you the argument has seen different arguments in different times and dates.

I like your style. Reminds me of... ME (Val Kilmer, Tombstone). Though I believe you've outdone me with this one (a 6-fer: argue, argue, arguing, agued, argument, and arguments, I bet you're good at skipping rocks).

To provide an unusually brief (especially for me) answer to your question, it was worth it for the Union and the slaves, not so much for the Confederates.

 

[major bill]

6th

How do Ninth Ohio, don't think we've talked before.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with much of what you say. Frist, saying there is no way the Confederates could have won is every bit as much a hypothetical as saying the Confederates could have won if X, Y, or Z. And while the ACW did unfold the way it did, and end the way it did, it also began when it began. It seems a bit disingenuous to engage in one what if...

...and then dismiss someone else's because it deviates from what really did happen.

But the idea that the ACW wasn't that close is untenable. I don't think you've fully assessed the 1864 presidential election as seen by the people who lived through it. Had Sherman not taken Atlanta prior to the election, Lincoln would have likely lost to McClellan, and then all bets are off. This hypothetical has the benefit of having been a very real and significant concern to the people who lived through it. If you just throw hindsight at it, you can't understand why they did what they did.

As Einstein said, "It is the theory which decides what can be observed." If you theory is too narrow, and built upon false assumptions, it has little hope of being worth a dang. In the case of history, historians can do research and easily tell us what happened, but historians can only analyze history if they consider the what if's. Without the what if, the fall of Atlanta becomes no more important than any other Union victory (i.e. all the ones you can't even remember because the what if is more of a so what).

If elected McClellan would not because president until March 4, 1865. By that time there would not have been much of a chance the Confedery could win the War. McClellan probably would not have surrendered in March of 1865. So are we talking about a political settlement in March or April of 1865 that equatedto a Confederatevictory? I am not sure at that time President Davis had a good enough hand to win by negotiating. However, if you believe the Confederates could win the War in March or April of 1865,I am willing to hear why.

 

[OhioUnion]

Yes, a thousand times yes. The loss of 300,000 American troops was a small price to pay to end slavery in America. I am of the belief that if the civil war had not happened slavery would have continued in America at least until the early 20th century.

 

[OhioUnion]

My prediction is based on the mechanization of agriculture. So I believe slaver would have lasted until the late 1940s to the late 1950s. Even this is dependent on how well enslaved labor performed in manufacturing operation. If slaves made good factory workers, I would predict the 1960 to 1970s.

Agree. And this would make a completely mockery of our Declaration of Independence.

 

[JerryD]

And the President was wrong. Just as many people thought Grant was stuck in Mississippi in April 1863 and should have been relieved, suddenly his army had crossed the Mississippi River and occupied a third Confederate state capital.
If you want to write an accurate post, tell the rest of story.

Wow. Your post is both insulting and reflects tremendous hubris on your part, in that you believe living today you can tell Lincoln that Lincoln was naive and didn't quite understand the situation like you do, and that your understanding, by implication, is the ONLY possible one.

I think you really need to look inward at why you think you can judge Lincoln's perception of what was happening so harshly, and if that is really reasonable.

 

[JerryD]

6th

If elected McClellan would not because president until March 4, 1865. By that time there would not have been much of a chance the Confedery could win the War. McClellan probably would not have surrendered in March of 1865. So are we talking about a political settlement in March or April of 1865 that equatedto a Confederatevictory? I am not sure at that time President Davis had a good enough hand to win by negotiating. However, if you believe the Confederates could win the War in March or April of 1865,I am willing to hear why.

Well, if we assume Lincoln lost the election, then that implies the military situation is significantly different than what happened. And of course, what that situation may be is has almost infinite possibilities. Maybe Lee sprung his trap at North Anna and crushed half the AOP and Grant was forced to retreat back to DC. Maybe Forrest was set loose on Sherman's supply lines and Sherman was forced to retreat to Chattanooga.

And we also need to account how Lincoln's loss would have affected southern morale. From all accounts, Lincoln's victory was demoralizing to the south and led to the record levels of desertion that we saw from southern armies. We can imagine how a Lincoln loss would have raised their morale and given them hope. Also, would Union soldiers have been similarly demoralized if Lincoln lost?

Who knows? But as I always say, if things were different, then things likely would have been different. We can't pretend that a major event like Lincoln losing the election has no effect on what happens after, or how different events could have impacted his re-election in the first place.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Well, if we assume Lincoln lost the election, then that implies the military situation is significantly different than what happened. And of course, what that situation may be is has almost infinite possibilities. Maybe Lee sprung his trap at North Anna and crushed half the AOP and Grant was forced to retreat back to DC. Maybe Forrest was set loose on Sherman's supply lines and Sherman was forced to retreat to Chattanooga.

And we also need to account how Lincoln's loss would have affected southern morale. From all accounts, Lincoln's victory was demoralizing to the south and led to the record levels of desertion that we saw from southern armies. We can imagine how a Lincoln loss would have raised their morale and given them hope. Also, would Union soldiers have been similarly demoralized if Lincoln lost?

Who knows? But as I always say, if things were different, then things likely would have been different. We can't pretend that a major event like Lincoln losing the election has no effect on what happens after, or how different events could have impacted his re-election in the first place.

This is the problem with these types of arguments. It's circular logic.

The south would have won if Lincoln had lost the election, and for Lincoln to lose the election, the south would have had to be winning.

I think you guys ought to read up on the 1864 election, as well. Because while those living through it may have had some trepidation, it was not and was never going to be close. Lincoln got nearly double the number of electoral votes he needed, and won the popular vote by 10 points, very similar to his first election.

Not taking Atlanta by September is not going to change that. By 1864 the confederacy had even less of a chance of victory than the years prior.

 

[wausaubob]

The historic war is evidence of what would have happened if the Confederates had achieved a temporary armistice.
War preparations continue. The US industrial base only gets stronger.
The British successfully diversify the sources for cotton.
Its strange to project contingencies into the Civil War which would lead to Confederate survival, when the real war ended in total victory by the US. Every Confederate army as defeated, every major city in the Confederacy was occupied.
What is it about the real world that bothers some people?

 

[wausaubob]

This is the problem with these types of arguments. It's circular logic.

The south would have won if Lincoln had lost the election, and for Lincoln to lose the election, the south would have had to be winning.

I think you guys ought to read up on the 1864 election, as well. Because while those living through it may have had some trepidation, it was not and was never going to be close. Lincoln got nearly double the number of electoral votes he needed, and won the popular vote by 10 points, very similar to his first election.

Not taking Atlanta by September is not going to change that. By 1864 the confederacy had even less of a chance of victory than the years prior.

Why didn't McClellan win? The paid labor states had moved to the Republican Party and wanted the Republican program completed. The war was only one issue.
And what happened in the war?
Farragut closed Mobile Bay to blockade runners. The blockade fleet, in a few weeks, could re-align on Wilmington and Charleston.
Grant severed the direct railroad between Richmond and the rest of Confederacy.
General Lee never tried to help the Confederates in Georgia. General Lee had to attempt to retain the Shenandoah Valley. That effort mostly failed.
First Sherman entered one of the last towns in the Confederacy with a rolling mill and a machine shop. Then Sheridan defeated General Early's force in lopsided battle fought without prepared entrenchments. And then things got worse for the Confederates.