What if historians...?

[whitworth]

What if historians had conceded that secession meant the Confederacy would never be able to protect

all its territory? That a lack of troops, inadequate supplies and an inadequate navy meant that a

significant part of Confederate territory was lost in the first year of the war, and never to be

regained?

What if historians had conceded that secession meant the Confederacy would never be a 13 state nation?

That its logistic shortages to field and maintain an army, meant that the Confederacy at best would be

a reduced nation of six, seven or eight states, and parts thereof, and never a full nation of thirteen

states as represented by the 13 stars in its Confederate battleflag?

What if historians had studied if a Confederacy, down to some six or seven states, could maintain

itself as slave states, without adversely affecting the value and cost of slaves in a continued

Confederate slave empire?

What if the historians had studied British records and found that the British government knew the

Confederacy could never win in areas where the U.S. would dominate with its naval forces? That

British intervention was impossible, as the British would bear the huge costs of waging war on the

American continent. Clearly a no win situation for the British. And in the end, the Confederacy

would not be a British colony.

What if historians had spent more time looking at the Confederacy's total inability to hold any U.S.

territories, and as a seceded nation would be unable to expand slavery in the west? It was clear by

1862, that the Confederacy was unable to hold Arizona and New Mexico, for its expanded slave trade.

Would students of the Civil War have a much different and more correct view of the consequences of secession?

 

[OpnDownfall]

What if historians....?

Modern day historians or southern historians in 1860?
Historians can only study and interpret Past events. The above concessions are more applicable to the historians of the mid-nineteenth century. More explicitly historians in the Ante-Bellum South.
In particular, their study of the usual result of rebellions and revolutions throughout history, up to 1860.

 

[5fish]

hum--

I do not know how to answer this "what if" because historians are human and want to tel a good story, sell a few books and seek fame. Notice, the word "truth" does not enter the equation as one writes history. We can hope that "truth" will be the by product of a good story...

I think you will have to wait until the untold story becomes the story itself...

Off to "What if"...

 

[hurryuphill]

Edward Gibbon said "The end comes when we no longer talk with ourselves. It is the end of genuine thinking and the beginning of the final loneliness."

The same be said of your what if questions.

To completely view the past by its consequences is lunacy. The historian evaluates past events by what caused those events. So should we all just bask away in some sort of happy state of answered questions, discounting those who sincerely tried and are trying to interpret the beliefs, fears, and expectations of those who have gone before?

The end does not discount the journey. Nor do future conclusions, however correct, invalidate the whims of history.

Maybe you should invest time in some memorable fiction..too much non makes Jack a dull and weary boy.

Macbeth:
[Aside] . . . Present fears
Are less than horrible imaginings;
My thought, whose murther yet is but fantastical,
Shakes so my single state of man that function
Is smother'd in surmise, and nothing is
But what is not.

Banquo:
Look how our partner's rapt.

Macbeth:
[Aside] If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown
me
Without my stir.

Macbeth Act 1, scene 3, 137–144

 

[unionblue]

hurryuphill,

Definately an excellent post and point you make above.

I may not agree with all of it and the intent you may have written it for.

But it is well done and extremely well thought out.

Thank you for sharing it with us.

Sincerely,
Unionblue