*****sburg

[NcDeuce]

What if Meade's Army of the Potomac was defeated at *****sburg? Would the South have eventually captured Washington? Would the war be over? Would Jefferson Davis take over the nation?

There were many significant events in the battle of *****sburg that helped turn the tide of the war...Buford's stand on the first day of battle which enabled Reynolds' I Corps to arrive to stabilize the front. The 20th Maine boys hauling ass and the subsequent defense of Little Round Top. more importantly: the Union's left flank.

What if Chamberlain's 20th Maine was overrun by Hood's division? *******'s courageous stand on the final day of battle at Cemetery Ridge. *******, II Corps commander was right at the point of attack, suffering a major wound.

What if the Confederate forces' artillery was used more wisely before the infamous charge? Maybe I'm the only one who is still amazed by the events that July...140+ years ago. Anyone else an American Civil War buff?

[stateofequilibrium]

Damn, was it Ewell or Early that didn't take the hill on the first day. I always get those two confused.

If *****sburg ws lost? It depends where the Army of the Potomac retreats to and how quickly Meade gathers his nerve for a counter-strike.

Outside of maybe the final confrontation at Appomattox, when you say an army lost the engagement in the Civil War, the army was by absolutely no means "crushed." The Union Army was constantly being reinforced and were good soldiers, just a long line of incompetent or overly-cautious commanders.

The South on the other hand had nothing in terms of resources both man and material that the Union had. What was so significant about *****sburg outside of the fact that it was basically the first time that Robert E. Lee had his ass handed to him on a platter.. and that Pickett's division was nearly entirely decimated plus other divisions lost tremendous amounts of men over the days assaulting Federal positions. While the North lost a goodly amount of men too, the North could always reinforce.

There is now controversy over Chamberlain's role in *****sburg, but I say leave the man alone. It did seem as if they were fighting down to sticks and stones to defend Little Round Top, and if Hood knew how desperate and alone Chamberlain was.. the flank would've collapsed.

Though they still would've had to keep climbing and wheeling and by then the Confederates were exhausted. In effect, the South was just in a crappy position and shouldn't have been fighting that battle in the first place. But Lee may have been too confident of his command and he was blind since Jeb Stuart had not reported in with Federal strength.

And yes, I too am a civil war buff. I love that period. It was quite extraordinary. Brother against brother, fighting it out.. and it really did seem like a war that pre-destined didn't it? The turn of events and all.

But Robert E. Lee intrigues me the most. Here you have a devoutly religious man who adheres to honor and loyalty like no other. He joined the US Army and served faithfully and seemed the prodigy to then, Lt. General Winfield Scott. Lee was then offered command of the US Army but refused, because he was torn between home and country. Something today's army tries hard to incorporate as one :-)

[Durandal]

The Union would have raised four more Corps and finished the Transcontinental Railroad a little bit later.

[California Joe]

I live just up the road from Fredericksburg.

To quote Shelby Foote: The North fought the war with one hand tied behind it's back.

[stateofequilibrium]

I live just up the road from Fredericksburg.

To quote Shelby Foote: The North fought the war with one hand tied behind it's back.

I hope that's not in reference to the North having an easy time of it!

More likely a reference that the North got its nose continually broken.

[California Joe]

The quote was in referrence to the fact that the North had a much larger population and overwhelming industrial might. The South could not recover their losses in either case. They were losing a battle of attrition even though they had demonstrably better leaders on the whole and a motivated army. The losses they suffered over the course of the war could simply not be replaced. Shelby Foote is a Southerner by the way, and in no way denigrated their valor in that conflict.

[Durandal]

Too True...

[ogukuo72]

The quote was in referrence to the fact that the North had a much larger population and overwhelming industrial might. The South could not recover their losses in either case. They were losing a battle of attrition even though they had demonstrably better leaders on the whole and a motivated army. The losses they suffered over the course of the war could simply not be replaced. Shelby Foote is a Southerner by the way, and in no way denigrated their valor in that conflict.

I have a question: if it was true that the North had a much larger population and much greater industrial capabilities (which WAS true), then, why did the Confederate states still ceded from the Union?

What is more, they did so by an act of war (opening fire on Fort Sumpter <sic?>), which virtually guarantees that the Union response would be to use military force to bring these states back in line.

I don't want to insult anyone's ancestors, but is doesn't seem very bright to me. The only parallel I can think of is the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour - and I think the Japanese military wasn't too bright to start a fight with the greatest industrial power in the world either!

[NcDeuce]

The quote was in referrence to the fact that the North had a much larger population and overwhelming industrial might. The South could not recover their losses in either case. They were losing a battle of attrition even though they had demonstrably better leaders on the whole and a motivated army. The losses they suffered over the course of the war could simply not be replaced. Shelby Foote is a Southerner by the way, and in no way denigrated their valor in that conflict.

I have a question: if it was true that the North had a much larger population and much greater industrial capabilities (which WAS true), then, why did the Confederate states still ceded from the Union?

What is more, they did so by an act of war (opening fire on Fort Sumpter <sic?>), which virtually guarantees that the Union response would be to use military force to bring these states back in line.

I don't want to insult anyone's ancestors, but is doesn't seem very bright to me. The only parallel I can think of is the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour - and I think the Japanese military wasn't too bright to start a fight with the greatest industrial power in the world either!

In that aspect, the American Civil War is similar to the American Revolution. We Americans really couldn't stand a chance against the well-trained Brits. The point was to be as pesky as possible and maybe they'd decide it wasn't worth it and leave us alone. And for a good 2+ years, the South won practically every battle.

[California Joe]

The quote was in referrence to the fact that the North had a much larger population and overwhelming industrial might. The South could not recover their losses in either case. They were losing a battle of attrition even though they had demonstrably better leaders on the whole and a motivated army. The losses they suffered over the course of the war could simply not be replaced. Shelby Foote is a Southerner by the way, and in no way denigrated their valor in that conflict.

I have a question: if it was true that the North had a much larger population and much greater industrial capabilities (which WAS true), then, why did the Confederate states still ceded from the Union?

What is more, they did so by an act of war (opening fire on Fort Sumpter <sic?>), which virtually guarantees that the Union response would be to use military force to bring these states back in line.

I don't want to insult anyone's ancestors, but is doesn't seem very bright to me. The only parallel I can think of is the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour - and I think the Japanese military wasn't too bright to start a fight with the greatest industrial power in the world either!

It's a complicated answer because there were many factors involved, one of the biggest being that the Federal government was not as important at that time. States rights were paramount in most peoples view. They even referred to themselves as "Virginians" etc. Not Americans. There was upheaval over slavery, new states being brought into the Union, westward expansion, political dissatisfaction at the election of Lincoln. It was a powderkeg.

The South did possess a strong martial history and excellent leadership, President Jefferson Davis was a war hero from commanding the Mississippi Rifles in the Mexican War. Their Generals were by and large brilliant battlefield commanders. They believed at the time that if the bloodied the Union early and often that Lincoln would sue for peace. It almost worked. They felt northern politicians should not be able to tell southern states how to run their own internal affairs.

[Durandal]

*snipped for brevity*

They believed at the time that if the bloodied the Union early and often that Lincoln would sue for peace. It almost worked. They felt northern politicians should not be able to tell southern states how to run their own internal affairs.

True. Add to this the fact that the Southern States had a dispariging amount of power verse their Northern counterparts because of the 3/5s vote, allowing slaves to be counted for voting...which of course was given to their white owners, not the slaves themselves. Up to the election of Lincoln, the South had held a fair amount of power in the House and Senate.

The South was, and I think rightfully so, looking at a massive change of politcal power in the United States.

We had come fairly close to a similar division during the Louisiana purchase by a collection of Northern States since, at the time, the Southern ones were wanting to establish the new territory as possible slave holding states.

Personally, if the founding forefathers had delt with the issue then, we would have NOT had the issue or the Civil War, but people like Jefferson and Washington knew it was a powder keg ready to blow then as well and appeased these folks and inthe case of Jefferson, won an election because of it.

The South was on the ropes though, and ultimately, they felt that the war was justified by their need to maintain State's Rights...which was BS...it was their control of voting power ultimately.

[California Joe]

Th language literally freeing the slaves was taken out of the Declaration of Independence to not piss off the Southern Colonies.....

[ogukuo72]

Several good points had been raised above.

I suppose it was a complex mixture of factors that ultimately led the southern states to decide to secede and to do so by an act of military force.

I'm not familiar with American Civil War history, but from what I've read so far, I tend to believe that if the southern states had made secession a political act, rather than a military act, the chances of their success would have been higher. This is because, it will have been much more difficult for the northern states to justify the use of military force to subdue the south.

If the North had used military force, the South would have gained much more sympathy with key powers such as France and Great Britain. As it was, both came very close to deciding to recognise the CSA.

Of course, Union victories in 1863 and the perception that the South was fighting to keep slavery, made it unwise for other powers to recognise the CSA, and perhaps to render aid in some form.

As such, without outside assistance, with a generally successful Union sea blockade, the material and logistical advantages of the Union became all the more significant.

[Durandal]

Of course, neither one of those nations would have been able to do anything.

THe possibility of either of those nations actually lending a hand is fairly overrated since the issue of slavery was a fairly big one. Britain no longed ofr the conquering of America and France, by the mid-1800s, no longer had the naval capacity to effect North America.

THe point of the military conflict was that there was no longer a political solution to the South's problem...the had a illigit power base supported by years of fear (and quite frankly if that offends my southern brothers, so be it) of civil war. Lincoln new the game and played hardball. The writing had been on the wall for nearly a decade and he was the first President to decide to hit the nail on the head and the South knew it. Lincoln was NEVER going to dictate terms to the South, as much as the thought the could (hindsight now, of course being 20/20).

That is why I made my original statement of "raise 4 Corps". The South may have had good West Point grads, but history proves that population and economic/production advantages win...plus the Union had its own quality leaders.

The South was doomed from the start. A society based on, in my eyes, a completely inhuman form of production (slavery) and neither the population or the industrial base to support a prolonged conflict.

[ogukuo72]

I believe that French intervention in the American struggle for independence was crucial.

Having said that, I believe Durandal is right. It is hard to conceive that the French or the British would intervene in the same way as in the war for independence. And I agree with Durandal that the crux of the issue is slavery. It would be difficult for the French or British government to justify to their population, any sort of military (or even material) assistance to the south. And in 1861, these were the only two powers that mattered (add Prussia to the list in 1866, but that Civil War had ended by then).

Besides, I fail to see what sort of strategic gains the British and the French could have gained by intervention. Somehow, I don't think cotton was that critical that these countries would go to war over it.

[FallenAngel]

I am a big time historian with a major soft spot for the Civil War. Let me then describe a few things to the best of my knowledge.

WHY A WAR:
Basically, in addition to what's been said about the (then) power relationship between states and the Union. The Southern states believed that they had freely joined that union (the reason we went to war with mexico- Texas wanted in.) and thus, should be allowed to freely leave it. This follows directly from John Locke's ideals about State of Nature and so forth, which was plagarized for the Dec. of Ind. and the foundation which the union itself was set upon. There was no rule in the constitution prohibiting this action at the time, and thus it was legitament. (anyone who doesn't think this makes it legit, you should go read about Teddy Rosevelt's "progressive" stance. Basically, he said that if there isn't a rule against it, he should be able to do it- and the American public loved it.)

That being said, the seccession was a political one. The south established their own government and thus rightly so claimed dominance over their lands, which included a tiny island in S. Carolina that happened to have a Union fort on it. The Confederates asked for a surrender, gaurenteeing free passage to the north, the commander (some say under orders) refused. They then warned him about the shelling. They shelled and no one was killed at all. The Confederates took the Island and all seemed peaceful, except for the hawks in the Union who saw this as a chance to justify what technically amounted to an invasion of a nieghboring country (see above proof for legitimacy) which they sold to the public as "putting down an armed insurrection". They invaded and the war began.

WAR
By *****sburg, the South had a loss cause, so if they would have won, they would have only lasted for a few more months, a year or two at the most. As has been said, the North had several key advantages. Even though it's the bloodiest battle in American history (53,000 casualties in three days. For comparison, the US lost 58,000 in the 11 year war in Vietnam.) Let's go back to the bloodiest day in American history--> Antietam.

Say that Lee's courier never lost the orders? Say the Confederates rallyed as had been planned and destroyed an unprepared, poorly commanded and divided Army of the Potomac, despite being outnumbered 2:1. There would have been casualties, but surely not the 28,000 who died in the one day at Antietam. That means there is no Emmancipation Proclomation, thus the war remains about the sovereignty of the CSA, not their slaves. There is no Army between Lee and Washington DC, Philidelphia or Boston allowing him to siege and take any of the three (out of four) important cities in the north. Britian and France both reconize the legal right for the CSA to exist after this victory on northern soil, which makes the Union look like an invading group of conquerers than people trying to save the Union.

And if THAT"s not enough to make your head spin, how about this: the British economy at the time was nearly dependent upon Southern Cotton. They were in the middle of the industrial revolution, in which textiles blazed the path for other industries to follow. The cheapest cotton was the best quality and it was the closests- which the Union blockading the south, the British economy started to suffer. Had the war gone on, the British economy would have been in real trouble. With the loss of a powerhouse economy, the Brits were in danger of losing their place at the top-of-the-world sort to speak. Under those circumstances, I believe they would have gotten directly involved. With the industrial might of England behind her, the blockade broken by the still strong Royal Navy, the South could fight on equal material terms with the Union. And what about the British dominion to the North? Could the Union survive a two front war if the Brits invaded from Canada and took New York and/or Boston? Would the English re-claim their lands they lost in the Revolution (minus the CSA)?

My mind SPINS at the possibilites opened up by one courier not dropping three cigars with a set of orders used as a binding.

An Author named Harry Turtledove writes an excellent series based on that very event. It spans 6 books and he's up to the beginning of WWII. ;) pretty damn good books, I highly recommend to those interested in "alternative history"

[ogukuo72]

I was not aware of the impact of cotton on the British industries. That is an interesting point. Cotton obviously had an impact, but was it critical enough for Britain to go to war. I believe, obviously not, given that they made do for four years without cotton from the south, and without going to war.

I would like to repeat my assertion that it was a bad move to start off secession by firing on a Union fort. Territorial boundaries could be settled later, when the most critical issue at that moment was to establish governance authority and legitimacy. Using military force to retake a small island on a river was not. This action gives rise to doubts about the statesmanship of the southern politicians.

I don't think one can say that slavery only became an issue after the 1863 Proclaimation. It was THE issue. If there was no institution of slavery in the south, the whole issue of state rights would not have come out. And secession was precipidated by the election of abolitionist Lincoln precisely over his abolitionistic stand. I believe that major powers like UK and France recognised this as the case, which explained their hesitation in recognising the CSA.

I will stick my neck out here. I believe that the people of CSA knew this too, in their heart of hearts, and they were ashamed of it. So ashamed that they were not willing to admit it, and dress up the whole struggle in terms of the 'Lost Cause' or of States Rights.

[FallenAngel]

Cotton WAS a big deal to the Brits and they very nearly went to war with the CSA over it despite the slavery issue. WHat they wanted was a sign that the CSA had a snowball's chance in hell of winning- a decisive victory on Union soil against a superior force would have been it. The British was greedy, but not stupid. They weren't going to support a lost cause.

The Fort Sumpter case is the flaw incarnate of the confederate system. The S.Carolinians thought it was the right thing to do and they would have done it even if every other state in the CSA said it was a bad idea (some in Moblie, the CSA capital at the time, said this very thing) but they were an independent state and no one could stop them.

Regarding slavery- you're right, it was the root of the problem, but that's not what Lincoln sold the war as. He stated himself he wanted to save the union, if that meant freeing the slaves, great, if not- oh well. The Emmancipation Proclomation made slavery the "official" cause for the war (which in politics makes all the difference) and it DID cost Lincoln some pretty good generals who resigned over this 'change of focus'. (interesting note, the EP only freed the slaves in the CSA- the slaves in the loyal union states of Kentucky and Maryland had to wait till after the war to get their freedom.)

Slavery was the main issue, but many argue that slavery would have eventually died out. It would have become more efficient (read: profitable) for plantation owners to free their slaves and pay them low wages as new technology arrived which decreased the need for manual labor.

Course, all of this is 140 years after the fact.