*****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.