"Harry Turtledove" War...

[bridav58]

I'm assuming some of you are familiar with Harry Turtledovs book "How Few Remain" . Along the lines of the book what do you think would happen if the ACW turned out differently with the North giving up after hearing of the casualties at Shiloh, McCleallans Peninsula Campaign doing a little worse historically, you then have 2nd. Bull Run and finally Antietam being nothing but a draw. At least that's my alt. history . The Union still keeps Maryland,Delaware, Kentucky,and Missouri(since they already have possesssion of all 4 for the most part) with West Virginia breaking off from Virginia being permanent & part of the Union. The Union also agrees to withdraw from Tennessee and all other parts of the South .
Now my question is how do these 2 nations interact after this? Do they start entering into pacts with European powers ? Do you think the CSA could survive as such as a confederacy or would they have to evolve into a more federal like governmental structure? Does the Union's federal government ,itself loosing prestige because of the war's result ,and the country be more confederate like afterwards with the states staying in the Union loosing faith/trust in the FED government?
Please don't laugh this is a 1:00 AM in the morning brainstorm of mine!!! LOL !!!

[asnrobert]

I think if the CSA had succeeded in becoming independent, they still would have had a hard row to hoe. For one thing, by 1863-64, England (who pre-war had bought a large amount of Southern cotton) was now buying most of its cotton from India, so cotton would no longer be the source of revenue it once was. While the South had made strides in becoming more industrialized (as Dennis pointed out in another thread) they were still nowhere near the industrialization of the North or Europe. Their economy wasn't too good, and even assuming they won by '64 (and were spared the ravages of Sherman's march to the sea), it probably still would be in poor shape. Plus, the Confederate government would have been in the same situation that the new US government was in after the Revolution with the Articles of Confederation- it would have been weak with little power to raise taxes or levy troops. So, I believe on of two things could happen- the South would have developed a stronger federal government (which would have been antithetical to their reason for seceding in the first place), or they would have become increasingly balkanized and become a group of bickering nation-states (which was what the US was in danger of becoming after the Revolution).
Then there was the issue of slavery. In his book The Civil War: a History, Harry Hansen writes that Jefferson Davis believed that slavery was doomed even as he took office.
Certainly, by the time the South could have won the Civil War, cotton was no longer king, so slavery wouldn't have been economically supportable. Even had they insisted on keeping it, with changing attitudes in the rest of the world (particularly Europe), the Confederacy might have become a pariah nation like South Africa was in the 1980s.

[bridav58]

I think if the CSA had succeeded in becoming independent, they still would have had a hard row to hoe. For one thing, by 1863-64, England (who pre-war had bought a large amount of Southern cotton) was now buying most of its cotton from India, so cotton would no longer be the source of revenue it once was. While the South had made strides in becoming more industrialized (as Dennis pointed out in another thread) they were still nowhere near the industrialization of the North or Europe. Their economy wasn't too good, and even assuming they won by '64 (and were spared the ravages of Sherman's march to the sea), it probably still would be in poor shape. Plus, the Confederate government would have been in the same situation that the new US government was in after the Revolution with the Articles of Confederation- it would have been weak with little power to raise taxes or levy troops. So, I believe on of two things could happen- the South would have developed a stronger federal government (which would have been antithetical to their reason for seceding in the first place), or they would have become increasingly balkanized and become a group of bickering nation-states (which was what the US was in danger of becoming after the Revolution).
Then there was the issue of slavery. In his book The Civil War: a History, Harry Hansen writes that Jefferson Davis believed that slavery was doomed even as he took office.
Certainly, by the time the South could have won the Civil War, cotton was no longer king, so slavery wouldn't have been economically supportable. Even had they insisted on keeping it, with changing attitudes in the rest of the world (particularly Europe), the Confederacy might have become a pariah nation like South Africa was in the 1980s.


A very good post I must say~!!!! I remember that at one time during the war Georgia threatened to secede from the CSA . In Harry Turtledove's book "How Few Remain" his story line leaves alot to be desired . The Trent Affair and the war going more against the Union may have brought France & England into the war to end it but the South would need an alliance & alot of foriegn aid from those 2 countries to survive . IMHO recognition is about all they get . I think France too would find the CSA/Texas far more difficult to deal with in her excurion into Mexico then the Union was . The CSA was thinking at one time during it's existence of expanding by siezing Mexico & Cuba. Now the UK may have felt the need for an alliance to keep the Union's attention away from Canada though most of the border with Canada was already settled by then furthermore the UK would have to invest alot into the CSA when they were already having a good economic relationship with the Union .

[old_pop2000]

My take on the scenario is that the South was never in control of its own destiny, only the North. The process would start with the defeat of Lincoln in the 1864 election. After the peace brokered by Washington, it would not take much time before Slavery is abolished. But the Civil War was never about slavery, only Lincoln created that image. It was about States Rights. The question becomes, can a confederation of states have enough central power, to create interstate commerce, conduct foreign policy and promote the general welfare. I doubt Jeff Davis is the man for that job.

The Confederacy could be a market for European manufactured goods along with US. As they continue the migration from an agrarian society to a manufacturing society, they will look and act more like the North, so eventually, when the North is growing in GNP, the South could be struggling and the loose confederation could simply dissolve.

[bridav58]

My take on the scenario is that the South was never in control of its own destiny, only the North. The process would starte with the defeat of Lincoln in the 1864 election. After the peace brokered by Washington, it would not take much time before Slavery is abolished. But the Civil War was never about slavery, only Lincoln created that image. It was about States Rights. The question becomes, can a confederation of states have enough central power, to create interstate commerce, conduct foreign policy and promote the general welfare. I doubt Jeff Davis is the man for that job.

The Confederacy could be a market for European manufactured goods along with US. As they continue the migration from an agrarian society to a manufacturing society, they will look and act more like the North, so eventually, when the North is growing in GNP, the South could be struggling and the loose confederation could simply dissolve.


if the war was totally about state's rights then why did all the articles of seccession of each & every state mention slavery so lavishly but state's rights weren't mentioned? I think it was South Carolina's article of seccesiion that mentioned slavery like 200 times but didn't mention state's rights once. IMHO it's a case where state's rights & slavery are very,very intertwined or even one & the same. In the 1840's & 1850's tensions between North & South escalated over wether or not slavery would extend to new territories and one could argue the ACW actually started much earlier in "Bloody Kansas" . I guess what I'm trying to say is that a person really can't seperate slavery from state's rights .

The North & South were different in that the former was more industrialised(though hardly a "industrialised" society like say the UK was it was still basically farming that employed Northernors) whilst the South was more algricultureral . Differences in that regard(rapid dynamic industrialisation verse agrarian algricultural) had had a tendecy historically to end up in war .
Either way you argue ,the war did start out with Mr. Lincoln merely wanting to preserve the Union while the Emancipation Proclamation was put forth to elevate the Union cause whilst also making it more unlikely for the UK & France to intervene.

[Ed Rotondaro]

A very good post I must say~!!!! I remember that at one time during the war Georgia threatened to secede from the CSA . In Harry Turtledove's book "How Few Remain" his story line leaves alot to be desired . The Trent Affair and the war going more against the Union may have brought France & England into the war to end it but the South would need an alliance & alot of foriegn aid from those 2 countries to survive . IMHO recognition is about all they get . I think France too would find the CSA/Texas far more difficult to deal with in her excurion into Mexico then the Union was . The CSA was thinking at one time during it's existence of expanding by siezing Mexico & Cuba. Now the UK may have felt the need for an alliance to keep the Union's attention away from Canada though most of the border with Canada was already settled by then furthermore the UK would have to invest alot into the CSA when they were already having a good economic relationship with the Union .

Hi:

Considering that Turtledove at least comes up with a plausible way for the South to achieve victory, including the support of France and England that she historically could not obtain, you might see a situation similar to North Korea and South Korea. In his alternate universe, Turtledove has the south still maintaining slavery thru the First World War. I assume you've read the various sequels to How Few Remain? The question remains how viable would the CSA be if it not longer had the threat of the Union to keep it together? What would prevent Texas from negotiating economic treaties with the USA? Since the southern states were still heavily agarian until the 20th century, they will need markets for their goods and I'm not sure Europe would be able to take in enough agarian products to keep the CSA viable. Another thing to keep in mind, there was a great deal of resentment from small farmers who didn't own slaves versus the plantation owners over their economic futures.

[old_pop2000]

if the war was totally about state's rights then why did all the articles of seccession of each & every state mention slavery so lavishly but state's rights weren't mentioned? I think it was South Carolina's article of seccesiion that mentioned slavery like 200 times but didn't mention state's rights once. IMHO it's a case where state's rights & slavery are very,very intertwined or even one & the same. In the 1840's & 1850's tensions between North & South escalated over wether or not slavery would extend to new territories and one could argue the ACW actually started much earlier in "Bloody Kansas" . I guess what I'm trying to say is that a person really can't seperate slavery from state's rights .

The North & South were different in that the former was more industrialised(though hardly a "industrialised" society like say the UK was it was still basically farming that employed Northernors) whilst the South was more algricultureral . Differences in that regard(rapid dynamic industrialisation verse agrarian algricultural) had had a tendecy historically to end up in war .
Either way you argue ,the war did start out with Mr. Lincoln merely wanting to preserve the Union while the Emancipation Proclamation was put forth to elevate the Union cause whilst also making it more unlikely for the UK & France to intervene.
The Southern states believed that it was the right of each state to chart its destiny, and Slavery was just one of the issues where they felt the state laws should supercede the federal laws. The basic underlying issue was always who had the ultimate right to decide about such matters, the state laws or the federal laws.

The interesting feature is that every state in the Union had used the issue of the rights of the states to govern themselves. This wasn't a new issue. The Confederate government throughout the war, had consistent problems attempt to conscript enough soldiers for their armies because the states wanted their militia and state regiments to stay in the state to fight. Amazingly, as the war progressed, the Confederate government and functions became more centralized and federalized, following closer it neighbor to the north. It wasn't always just men that were a problem, arms, food etc. were many times, unable to be sent to the Confederate armies because the governors did not want anyone but their units and citizens to have it.

It is apparent to most CW scholars that the Davis government consistently overruled local and state officials to facilitate the war. This leads one to believe that the simple confederation principle upon which the Confederacy was based, was fragile and probably would not survive the peace, had the North simply cut them loose.

[Ed Rotondaro]

if the war was totally about state's rights then why did all the articles of seccession of each & every state mention slavery so lavishly but state's rights weren't mentioned? I think it was South Carolina's article of seccesiion that mentioned slavery like 200 times but didn't mention state's rights once. IMHO it's a case where state's rights & slavery are very,very intertwined or even one & the same. In the 1840's & 1850's tensions between North & South escalated over wether or not slavery would extend to new territories and one could argue the ACW actually started much earlier in "Bloody Kansas" . I guess what I'm trying to say is that a person really can't seperate slavery from state's rights .

The North & South were different in that the former was more industrialised(though hardly a "industrialised" society like say the UK was it was still basically farming that employed Northernors) whilst the South was more algricultureral . Differences in that regard(rapid dynamic industrialisation verse agrarian algricultural) had had a tendecy historically to end up in war .
Either way you argue ,the war did start out with Mr. Lincoln merely wanting to preserve the Union while the Emancipation Proclamation was put forth to elevate the Union cause whilst also making it more unlikely for the UK & France to intervene.

Hi:

The issue of slavery was seen as a state's right. But the economics of the time period show you two totally different societies. All the large cities were in the North. There was only one southern state with a population of over a million (Virginia). The amount of railroads and track were miniscule compared to the North. And one final thing to keep in mind. The remaining territories that were not yet states pretty much favored the North. Would a second conflict erupt over control of say the Dakotas or Arizona and New Mexico? Could the south win again without foreign assistance?

[Kyle Holgate]

Hi:

The issue of slavery was seen as a state's right. But the economics of the time period show you two totally different societies. All the large cities were in the North. There was only one southern state with a population of over a million (Virginia). The amount of railroads and track were miniscule compared to the North. And one final thing to keep in mind. The remaining territories that were not yet states pretty much favored the North. Would a second conflict erupt over control of say the Dakotas or Arizona and New Mexico? Could the south win again without foreign assistance?

How few remain is the first book in a series. The civil war is not the last war fought between the USA and CSA. I think there are now several books out in the series, and that they are now approaching or already in to WW2.

[Ed Rotondaro]

How few remain is the first book in a series. The civil war is not the last war fought between the USA and CSA. I think there are now several books out in the series, and that they are now approaching or already in to WW2.

Kyle:

You are correct. They have at least three volumes out covering WWII. George Patton is the premier armor commander fighting for the South (remember he came from Viriginia lineage even if he grew up in California). I have not seen the WWII volumes out in a mass market format for some reason.

[john964]

Kyle:

You are correct. They have at least three volumes out covering WWII. George Patton is the premier armor commander fighting for the South (remember he came from Viriginia lineage even if he grew up in California). I have not seen the WWII volumes out in a mass market format for some reason.
Here are the titles of Turtledoves books

How Few Remain

American Front
Walk in Hell
Breakthroughs

Blood and Iorn
The Center Cannot Hold
The Victorious Opposition

Return Engagment
Drive to the East
The Grapple
In at the Death

[Ed Rotondaro]

Here are the titles of Turtledoves books

How Few Remain

American Front
Walk in Hell
Breakthroughs

Blood and Iorn
The Center Cannot Hold
The Victorious Opposition

Return Engagment
Drive to the East
The Grapple
In at the Death

John:

I have all of them except for the last four. Have they come out in mass market size yet? All i have seen has been hard covers, but my local bookstore sometimes delays in getting the latest releases (which is strange since they specialize in sci-fi, fantasy and horror).

[john964]

John:

I have all of them except for the last four. Have they come out in mass market size yet? All i have seen has been hard covers, but my local bookstore sometimes delays in getting the latest releases (which is strange since they specialize in sci-fi, fantasy and horror).

Ed, the last 4 were published 2004-07. So your local bookstore should have them or at least be able to order them. If not I recomend a large chain bookstore

[asnrobert]

This leads one to believe that the simple confederation principle upon which the Confederacy was based, was fragile and probably would not survive the peace, had the North simply cut them loose.

About a year or so ago I read Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. I can't find the passage, but in the book he talked about confederations, and I believe he said they usually either dissolved or became a centralized empire.

[asnrobert]

Regarding European intervention, it wasn't going to happen. I've read that France's Napoleon III favored the South, but he followed England's lead. Some English leaders sympathized with the South, but the Emancipation Proclamation sank any chance they would intervene (after all, it would be rather awkward for a country that was campaigning to rid the world of slavery to come to the aid of those who were ostensibly fighting for slavery). Also, what real reason would they have to intervene? The disruption of Southern cotton sales did affect English mills, but only temporarily until alternate sources were found. The only thing I could think of would be that by aiding the South, they could weaken the United States, perhaps allowing them to have greater influence or control of territory in the western hemisphere- I know Napoleon III was involved in some adventurism in Mexico, but that came to a screeching halt after the ACW when Phil Sheridan's forces were deployed to the border.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed, the last 4 were published 2004-07. So your local bookstore should have them or at least be able to order them. If not I recomend a large chain bookstore

John:

They had them in hardcover and trade size. Apparently there is some delay in mass market editions. Wonder why?

[Ed Rotondaro]

Regarding European intervention, it wasn't going to happen. I've read that France's Napoleon III favored the South, but he followed England's lead. Some English leaders sympathized with the South, but the Emancipation Proclamation sank any chance they would intervene (after all, it would be rather awkward for a country that was campaigning to rid the world of slavery to come to the aid of those who were ostensibly fighting for slavery). Also, what real reason would they have to intervene? The disruption of Southern cotton sales did affect English mills, but only temporarily until alternate sources were found. The only thing I could think of would be that by aiding the South, they could weaken the United States, perhaps allowing them to have greater influence or control of territory in the western hemisphere- I know Napoleon III was involved in some adventurism in Mexico, but that came to a screeching halt after the ACW when Phil Sheridan's forces were deployed to the border.

Robert:

Very astute summation, especially of the so-called "Mexican Adventure" with France putting Maximillian on the throne of Mexico. And it was for exactly those reasons, to weaken the US. This from our old friends. Actually I don't think the French had forgiven the US for the naval war they fought with us after the revolution. And England was more worried about Imperial Russia threatening her North West frontier in India than in going to war with the US.

[asnrobert]

A very good post I must say~!!!! I remember that at one time during the war Georgia threatened to secede from the CSA .
Toward the end of the war, most of the Southern states preferred to keep their limited forces at home, rather than send them to Virginia as Davis requested. In a similar vein, at one point in the war, Confederate leaders in the West, requested that Lee send some of his troops to assist. Lee responded that it would weaken his defense of Virginia, so the troops were not sent. Of course, Lee did send Longstreet's troops to the West later, but it was too little too late. The "my state comes first" mentality I think was one of the reasons the Confederacy lost.




Now the UK may have felt the need for an alliance to keep the Union's attention away from Canada though most of the border with Canada was already settled by then furthermore the UK would have to invest alot into the CSA when they were already having a good economic relationship with the Union .

I really don't see the UK having to worry about Canada. For one thing, I don't believe the Union wanted to antagonize England (some hotheads wanted to declare war on England during the Trent incident, but cooler heads prevailed). Also, as you pointed out, the border was pretty much settled by this time- I believe the last major beef was over the Oregon Territory in 1846 ("54-40 or Fight!). Also, the failed invasion attempts during the Revolution and th War of 1812 probably cured us of our desire to attack Canada. (BTW, a year and a half ago, I toured the Halifax Citadel- I was surprised to learn that it was intended to protect Halifax Harbor from us Yankees! Anyone who's interested can see my pics here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/44585097@N00/sets/72157594303899735/)

[Ed Rotondaro]

Toward the end of the war, most of the Southern states preferred to keep their limited forces at home, rather than send them to Virginia as Davis requested. In a similar vein, at one point in the war, Confederate leaders in the West, requested that Lee send some of his troops to assist. Lee responded that it would weaken his defense of Virginia, so the troops were not sent. Of course, Lee did send Longstreet's troops to the West later, but it was too little too late. The "my state comes first" mentality I think was one of the reasons the Confederacy lost.




I really don't see the UK having to worry about Canada. For one thing, I don't believe the Union wanted to antagonize England (some hotheads wanted to declare war on England during the Trent incident, but cooler heads prevailed). Also, as you pointed out, the border was pretty much settled by this time- I believe the last major beef was over the Oregon Territory in 1846 ("54-40 or Fight!). Also, the failed invasion attempts during the Revolution and th War of 1812 probably cured us of our desire to attack Canada. (BTW, a year and a half ago, I toured the Halifax Citadel- I was surprised to learn that it was intended to protect Halifax Harbor from us Yankees! Anyone who's interested can see my pics here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/44585097@N00/sets/72157594303899735/)

Robert:

A motley band of Irish Fennians did try to invade Canada, but I don't remember the date. It amy have been during the Civil War. They were easily repulsed.

[asnrobert]

Robert:

A motley band of Irish Fennians did try to invade Canada, but I don't remember the date. It amy have been during the Civil War. They were easily repulsed.

Yes, but were they even in the US military at the time? Their actions certainly weren't sanctioned by the US Government.

[asnrobert]

A while back I was browsing through a bookstore and came across a book entitled "The Confederate States of America: What Might have Been" by Roger L. Ransom. Not a novel like Turtledove's books, it examines how the South might have won the war and the consequences. reading the blurb on the back, Stonewall Jackson survives his wounds, enables Lee to win at Gettysburg and they are able to hold the Union Army at bay, allowing Lincoln to be defeated in the 1864 election, resulting in a negotiated peace.
Many people seem to think that if Lee won at Gettysburg, then the South could have won the war. From what I've read (and I don't consider myself an expert), it seems the war was lost in the West, not in Virginia. The day after Gettysburg, Vicksburg fell to the Union, which meant the South no longer controlled the Mississippi. Months after that, it was the Union victory at Chattanooga which enabled Sherman to march on Atlanta, and thence to the sea. It was this that really tore the guts out of the Confederacy. After Sherman reached Savannah in December 1864, it was only a matter of time before Lee was defeated.
I think the only way that a Confederate victory at Gettysburg could have mattered would be if they had given the Union Army a real kick in the teeth, like at 2nd Manassas. If the battle had been like Antietam or even Chancellorsville, Lee's army would have been too badly mauled to do anything other then head back home. If they had been able to win a decisive victory without too many losses, then they could rampage through the north for a while, or threaten Washington. This might be enough to demoralize the North and lose support for the war (OTOH, having rebel troops on Northern soil might galvanize the northern population to the war effort). However, if the Union leadership was worried enough to pull troops from the west to deal with Lee (Newt Gingrich has a series of novels where the Confederates win at Gettysburg and Grant is called east earlier to deal with him), this might weaken the Union Army in the west sufficiently so that Sherman's campaign isn't possible. This might allow the South to hold the Union Army at bay, allowing for Lincoln's defeat in 1864. With McClellan in office and the country tired of war, a negotiated peace just might be possible.

[Campy]

I really don't see the UK having to worry about Canada. For one thing, I don't believe the Union wanted to antagonize England (some hotheads wanted to declare war on England during the Trent incident, but cooler heads prevailed). Also, as you pointed out, the border was pretty much settled by this time- I believe the last major beef was over the Oregon Territory in 1846 ("54-40 or Fight!). Also, the failed invasion attempts during the Revolution and th War of 1812 probably cured us of our desire to attack Canada.

Throughout the Civil War, Confederate agents plotted and staged operations out of Canada. Including attempted uprisings in the Midwest, and at least one raid in Vermont. Certainly could have been a pretext for invasion. Never heard any serious Northern plans, however.
Frank

[asnrobert]

. The CSA was thinking at one time during it's existence of expanding by siezing Mexico & Cuba.

I think this may have been a pipe dream of Jeff Davis. I don't believe that the Confederacy had the manpower to invade Mexico, at least not while they were fighting the North. And there was simply no way they could get Cuba. Not only would manpower be an issue, but with no viable navy, they'd be hard pressed to transport a sufficient invasion force and keep it supplied. I think Spain, even as far along in decay as it was, would have been able to foil any Confederate invasion attempt.

[djcyclone]

I will try to be brief. From what I know of the Civil War, I would only venture to say that the South gave up their abilty to win with the first battle. I forget the name of the battle, but I know that the South really kicked the crap out of the Union the first time that they met. The catch was, that they where only about 20 miles south of Washington D.C. I think that distance is accurate, but I cannot be for sure. Anyway after the South won, they where so excited that they had been victorious that they forgot to continue on into the Capital. They could have won the war then, or at least dealt a crippling blow to the Union. If Lincoln had to retreat from the Capital from an advancing CSA army, what would that have done to the Union moral? When they made that mistake, everything else was a downhill slide. The Union simply had more money, more men, and more ships then the South.

I do not believe that it was Lincoln that started the whole slavery issue. He was with no doubt very against the issue, but I believe it was Harriot Tubman that started that whole deal. If I remember right, Lincoln even requested a meeting with her to discuss her book, and during that meeting he asked her how she felt about the war that she had started.

In a book that she had wrote,( I believe it was Uncle Tom's Cabin) she described slavery as being extremly cruel, and spoke of how all slave owners whipped their slaves, and starved them regularly. This was completely exagerated, because most slave owners treated their slaves very well to keep them happy so they would work hard, and would not try to escape. This is why many slaves stayed with their owners even after the war ended, and they where given their freedom. Only a few plantation owners wher cruel to their slaves. The book however started the whole revolution in the North. It was slavery that started the war in a way. The war was about all of the differences between the North and South. Slavery was just the match that lit the fuze.

I do not know anything about the raids on Canada, or CSA plans for Mexico and Cuba. This is the first I have heard of anything like that. I do agree that if the South had won, it would have been a short lived victory. Davis would had to have created a Federal government in order to survive, and that would have gone against everything that the South stood for. Everything else would have fallen apart after that.

[asnrobert]

I will try to be brief. From what I know of the Civil War, I would only venture to say that the South gave up their abilty to win with the first battle. I forget the name of the battle, but I know that the South really kicked the crap out of the Union the first time that they met. The catch was, that they where only about 20 miles south of Washington D.C. I think that distance is accurate, but I cannot be for sure. Anyway after the South won, they where so excited that they had been victorious that they forgot to continue on into the Capital. They could have won the war then, or at least dealt a crippling blow to the Union. If Lincoln had to retreat from the Capital from an advancing CSA army, what would that have done to the Union moral? When they made that mistake, everything else was a downhill slide. The Union simply had more money, more men, and more ships then the South.

I do not believe that it was Lincoln that started the whole slavery issue. He was with no doubt very against the issue, but I believe it was Harriot Tubman that started that whole deal. If I remember right, Lincoln even requested a meeting with her to discuss her book, and during that meeting he asked her how she felt about the war that she had started.

In a book that she had wrote,( I believe it was Uncle Tom's Cabin) she described slavery as being extremly cruel, and spoke of how all slave owners whipped their slaves, and starved them regularly. This was completely exagerated, because most slave owners treated their slaves very well to keep them happy so they would work hard, and would not try to escape. This is why many slaves stayed with their owners even after the war ended, and they where given their freedom. Only a few plantation owners wher cruel to their slaves. The book however started the whole revolution in the North. It was slavery that started the war in a way. The war was about all of the differences between the North and South. Slavery was just the match that lit the fuze.

I do not know anything about the raids on Canada, or CSA plans for Mexico and Cuba. This is the first I have heard of anything like that. I do agree that if the South had won, it would have been a short lived victory. Davis would had to have created a Federal government in order to survive, and that would have gone against everything that the South stood for. Everything else would have fallen apart after that.

Harriet Tubman was an escaped slave who was a conductor on the Underground Railroad. I believe you were thinking of Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin (supposedly when Lincoln met her during the war, he said to her "So you're the little lady who wrote the book that started this big war."). When slave owners claimed she exaggerated the condition of slaves, she wrote another book, Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin, which supposedly documented how salves were treated by interviewing actual escaped slaves.

The first major battle between the North and South was at Bull Run. The south did win it, but their army was also disorganized after the battle (both sides were basically rookies at this point). I recall one reading that one Confederate General stated that his men wanted to pack up and go home after the battle, assuming that their victory had settled the issue.

[djcyclone]

The truth is they could have finished the war right their. If they had taken Washington D.C., the Union would have been in a pickle. Moral would have been very low, and the Prsident would have had to run from an advancing army. Chances are that the South would have simply ransomed the Capital for the things they wanted, and the Union might have agreed and just given them their independence. Just a theory of course, but that is the way I see it.

After that battle I believe that it was a down hill slide for the South. They had their ups in the War like Lee's advance into Pennselvania, but ultimatly they had lost before it began. The Union had everything that they needed to win.

Also, that battle was one of the funniest battles the U.S. has ever fought. People actualy brought chairs and sat down on the side lines and watched the battle like it was a sport or something. They of course saw more than they had bargained for, and ran when the Union began their retreet. How crazy can you get, to have civilians bring lawn chairs (or whatever they had back then) and watch a battle like it some kind of sport?

[Ed Rotondaro]

I think if the CSA had succeeded in becoming independent, they still would have had a hard row to hoe. For one thing, by 1863-64, England (who pre-war had bought a large amount of Southern cotton) was now buying most of its cotton from India, so cotton would no longer be the source of revenue it once was. While the South had made strides in becoming more industrialized (as Dennis pointed out in another thread) they were still nowhere near the industrialization of the North or Europe. Their economy wasn't too good, and even assuming they won by '64 (and were spared the ravages of Sherman's march to the sea), it probably still would be in poor shape. Plus, the Confederate government would have been in the same situation that the new US government was in after the Revolution with the Articles of Confederation- it would have been weak with little power to raise taxes or levy troops. So, I believe on of two things could happen- the South would have developed a stronger federal government (which would have been antithetical to their reason for seceding in the first place), or they would have become increasingly balkanized and become a group of bickering nation-states (which was what the US was in danger of becoming after the Revolution).
Then there was the issue of slavery. In his book The Civil War: a History, Harry Hansen writes that Jefferson Davis believed that slavery was doomed even as he took office.
Certainly, by the time the South could have won the Civil War, cotton was no longer king, so slavery wouldn't have been economically supportable. Even had they insisted on keeping it, with changing attitudes in the rest of the world (particularly Europe), the Confederacy might have become a pariah nation like South Africa was in the 1980s.

Robert:

I believe you have made some good points here, especially about the potential for friction between the southern states. In fact I believe the US could have waited them out and watched as they asked to be re-admitted to the the Union once their economies worsened. One wonders if there would still have been some zones of contention as the US and CSA spread out west?

[Ed Rotondaro]

The truth is they could have finished the war right their. If they had taken Washington D.C., the Union would have been in a pickle. Moral would have been very low, and the Prsident would have had to run from an advancing army. Chances are that the South would have simply ransomed the Capital for the things they wanted, and the Union might have agreed and just given them their independence. Just a theory of course, but that is the way I see it.

After that battle I believe that it was a down hill slide for the South. They had their ups in the War like Lee's advance into Pennselvania, but ultimatly they had lost before it began. The Union had everything that they needed to win.

Also, that battle was one of the funniest battles the U.S. has ever fought. People actualy brought chairs and sat down on the side lines and watched the battle like it was a sport or something. They of course saw more than they had bargained for, and ran when the Union began their retreet. How crazy can you get, to have civilians bring lawn chairs (or whatever they had back then) and watch a battle like it some kind of sport?

DJ:

Do you honestly believe that the Union would have folded that easily? Sorry you need a better argument than that. Losing a city, even the capital city would not have caused the North to collapse. The Confederacy lost several major cities like New Orleans and Vicksburg and still hung on. Do not attribute that much to symbolism. You have to beat the armies to win.

[asnrobert]

DJ:

Do you honestly believe that the Union would have folded that easily? Sorry you need a better argument than that. Losing a city, even the capital city would not have caused the North to collapse. The Confederacy lost several major cities like New Orleans and Vicksburg and still hung on. Do not attribute that much to symbolism. You have to beat the armies to win.

True. In addition, the loss or destruction of Washington could have had a galvanizing effect on the Union to win the war no matter what.
Plus, as I pointed out dj in the previous post, both sides were rookies at war. The South's forces were equally disorganized after the battle, so they simply would not have the strength or coherence to launch an attack on the capital.

[bridav58]

DJ:

Do you honestly believe that the Union would have folded that easily? Sorry you need a better argument than that. Losing a city, even the capital city would not have caused the North to collapse. The Confederacy lost several major cities like New Orleans and Vicksburg and still hung on. Do not attribute that much to symbolism. You have to beat the armies to win.

didn't cause the US to fold in the War of 1812 did it??? In fact it galvanised the US forces.

[Ed Rotondaro]

didn't cause the US to fold in the War of 1812 did it??? In fact it galvanised the US forces.

Good point, I forgot that example!

[djcyclone]

DJ:

Do you honestly believe that the Union would have folded that easily? Sorry you need a better argument than that. Losing a city, even the capital city would not have caused the North to collapse. The Confederacy lost several major cities like New Orleans and Vicksburg and still hung on. Do not attribute that much to symbolism. You have to beat the armies to win.




Okay, I will try to be brief, but I can come up with a better argument. First of all the Civil War and the War of 1812 are completly different from the North's perspective. In the War of 1812, the enemy is the British, and they intend to reconquer America. This means that most of the Americans in that day would have been drug out in the street, and executed by a firing squad after they had been called a traitor. The British where not playing around, and they did not care about right and wrong in that paticular time period. In the Civil War the enemy is the South. The South is not trying to conquer the North. The South just wants their independence. This means that the North is not under the same threat. If we loose, we do not really loose we just seperate and become two countries instead of one. The average citizens life does not change, because he still has his job, his life is not threatened, and he just goes about his normal buisiness.

Now the mention of the South's perspective of the Civil War. The Union is trying to conquer the South, and many people in the South do not know how they will be treated if they loose. They do not know if they will be executed or thrown in jail, but they do most certainly know that their lives will change if the South looses. This is more of a motivating factor when it comes to continuing the war after the loss of major cities.

Now to the politics side of the equation. We are talking about a completly different government. In the War of 1812 most of the Founding Fathers where still alive, and had a big say in what the government was doing. Completly different approach to the War. In the Civil War, all of the Founding Fathers where dead, and a completly different government was inplace.

Finally, you must look at American history to judge how the population would act. In WW II the population knew that if America lost, we would most likely be over run and conquered. This motivated the Government to continue the war no matter what the cost. In fact it has been predicted that if Japan launched an attack on the West Coast at the same time that they attacked Pearl Harbor, they would have made it to Chicago before the U.S. Army could stop them.

Now only 5 years later, in Korea. The American people do not think that America is in danger (even though we actualy where). Many people think that we are just getting our noses into someone else's Civil War. We are in the end not able to finish the War, and we settle for a truce. 10 years later we go to Vietnam, and even though we win the War in every factor that matters, we still give up and go home. Again the American people where not threatened. If we loose, then we really do not loose anything at all.

Now back to the War of 1812. The War of 1812 ended in 1816 or 17 (I do not remember exactly), but this means that more than 40 years passed before the Civil War started. I do believe that if the CSA had taken Washington D.C., congress would have opted to simply give them their independence and get the Capital back. The American public would not have been threatened enough to rally a Win at all cost cry. Lincoln may have attacked the CSA afterwords, or maybe negotiated a truce, and allowed them to rejoin the Union, but all of that is just theory.

[Citadelvette]

The War of 1812 officially ended in December of 1814 but because of communication being slow fighting continued into 1815.

[old_pop2000]

The issue of what would happen, if the Confederates had captured Washington is far to complex to adequately determine. The Union government probably will move to another city such as Philadelphia, Boston; it is hard to say. Even if captured, it is doubtful that they could hold it for long due to long supply lines, so they might just leave and head after the government or more especially, the remnants of the Union Army. Its all conjecture.

[djcyclone]

The issue of what would happen, if the Confederates had captured Washington is far to complex to adequately determine. The Union government probably will move to another city such as Philadelphia, Boston; it is hard to say. Even if captured, it is doubtful that they could hold it for long due to long supply lines, so they might just leave and head after the government or more especially, the remnants of the Union Army. Its all conjecture.



I just wanted to give my perspective on why I believe that the South could have won the war at the first battle. I still believe that if Washington had fallen, it would have been a cripling blow to the North. I do not believe that the Northern population would have been threatened enough to make a "WIN AT ALL COST" cry. This is why I believe that the Northern Government would have sued for peace, and given the South what they wanted.

What would have happened next is anyone's guess. But try to imagine the embaressment too the Lincoln administration. Chances are, he would have lost most of his control over the Northern Armies. And another thing to consider, was that not all Northerners hated the CFS. Their where many sympothizers in the North, just as their always are in any war.

[old_pop2000]

I just wanted to give my perspective on why I believe that the South could have won the war at the first battle. I still believe that if Washington had fallen, it would have been a cripling blow to the North. I do not believe that the Northern population would have been threatened enough to make a "WIN AT ALL COST" cry. This is why I believe that the Northern Government would have sued for peace, and given the South what they wanted.

What would have happened next is anyone's guess. But try to imagine the embaressment too the Lincoln administration. Chances are, he would have lost most of his control over the Northern Armies. And another thing to consider, was that not all Northerners hated the CFS. Their where many sympothizers in the North, just as their always are in any war.
Your perspective, as with anyones, is important, provided we all understand that there are too many dependent and independent variables that must be considered, before we could even make a reasonably accurate assessment. Much depends on when the South is able to accomplish this feat. Early in the war, during the Gettysburg campaign or at the end; which I find doubtful.

What is the state of their army after the capture?

Has it taken heavy losses and is short of supplies?

Does the Union Navy still have a stranglehold on major CSA ports?

What is the status of the European nations at the time of the capture?

What is the state of the economy of the South?

What is going on in the West?

If Grant is still successful, does the capture accelerate his operations?

Does he initiate a drive from Nashville or anywhere on the Ohio or Mississippi toward the heart of the Confederacy while Southern Armies are moving northward?

Can they stop him, if they have move resources north to assist the ANV?

Lots to consider before making any real statements as to what the outcome would be. But that is how we learn and understand what actually did happen, by exploring all and more of these questions.

Fun discussion, makes one think. That never hurts.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Okay, I will try to be brief, but I can come up with a better argument. First of all the Civil War and the War of 1812 are completly different from the North's perspective. In the War of 1812, the enemy is the British, and they intend to reconquer America. This means that most of the Americans in that day would have been drug out in the street, and executed by a firing squad after they had been called a traitor. The British where not playing around, and they did not care about right and wrong in that paticular time period. In the Civil War the enemy is the South. The South is not trying to conquer the North. The South just wants their independence. This means that the North is not under the same threat. If we loose, we do not really loose we just seperate and become two countries instead of one. The average citizens life does not change, because he still has his job, his life is not threatened, and he just goes about his normal buisiness.

Now the mention of the South's perspective of the Civil War. The Union is trying to conquer the South, and many people in the South do not know how they will be treated if they loose. They do not know if they will be executed or thrown in jail, but they do most certainly know that their lives will change if the South looses. This is more of a motivating factor when it comes to continuing the war after the loss of major cities.

Now to the politics side of the equation. We are talking about a completly different government. In the War of 1812 most of the Founding Fathers where still alive, and had a big say in what the government was doing. Completly different approach to the War. In the Civil War, all of the Founding Fathers where dead, and a completly different government was inplace.

Finally, you must look at American history to judge how the population would act. In WW II the population knew that if America lost, we would most likely be over run and conquered. This motivated the Government to continue the war no matter what the cost. In fact it has been predicted that if Japan launched an attack on the West Coast at the same time that they attacked Pearl Harbor, they would have made it to Chicago before the U.S. Army could stop them.

Now only 5 years later, in Korea. The American people do not think that America is in danger (even though we actualy where). Many people think that we are just getting our noses into someone else's Civil War. We are in the end not able to finish the War, and we settle for a truce. 10 years later we go to Vietnam, and even though we win the War in every factor that matters, we still give up and go home. Again the American people where not threatened. If we loose, then we really do not loose anything at all.

Now back to the War of 1812. The War of 1812 ended in 1816 or 17 (I do not remember exactly), but this means that more than 40 years passed before the Civil War started. I do believe that if the CSA had taken Washington D.C., congress would have opted to simply give them their independence and get the Capital back. The American public would not have been threatened enough to rally a Win at all cost cry. Lincoln may have attacked the CSA afterwords, or maybe negotiated a truce, and allowed them to rejoin the Union, but all of that is just theory.

DJ:

I am having trouble following your post here. Your statements on the war of 1812 are totally unsupportable. People would be drug out into the streets and shot as traitors? Where do you come up with this? Nothing of the kind happened even during the Revolutionary War. The British were not trying to conquer the US. They were trying to protect Canada. The entire campaign they waged was defensive in nature. DC was burned in retaliation for the US burning the city of York (now called Toronto). Almost all the battles were fought on the border of Canada or in the Northwest frontier. The British throughout history have been ruthless when necessary, but they didn't kill civilians. Show me any proof that they would have do so. I would advise you to read a good history of the War of 1812, your facts seem very questionable.

I was not trying to compare the War of 1812 with the Civil War, I was just reminded by another poster that even when DC was burned it didn't cause the US roll over and die. I hope you can understand that fact? Personally I am not even convinced that if the US took Richmond in 1864, that the South would have given up. It took the trapping of Lee's army at Appomatox to convince him and Davis that the war was lost. You win wars by defeating the armies and navies, not just by capturing cities. If the Civil War shows us anything, it was that the US was willing to pay a stiff price to preserve the Union. There were many times when resolve could have faltered, but still the troops and the people fought on. This is also try of the South. Civil wars are the worst because they usually involve idealism and passion.

In closing I'm not trying to attack you personally, I am merely attacking your arguments and I have no intention of trying to change your opinions.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I just wanted to give my perspective on why I believe that the South could have won the war at the first battle. I still believe that if Washington had fallen, it would have been a cripling blow to the North. I do not believe that the Northern population would have been threatened enough to make a "WIN AT ALL COST" cry. This is why I believe that the Northern Government would have sued for peace, and given the South what they wanted.

What would have happened next is anyone's guess. But try to imagine the embaressment too the Lincoln administration. Chances are, he would have lost most of his control over the Northern Armies. And another thing to consider, was that not all Northerners hated the CFS. Their where many sympothizers in the North, just as their always are in any war.

DJ:

About the only time the capture of Washington or a significant Southern victory could have possibly affected the war would have been during the elections of 1864. Such actions might have caused Lincoln to be defeated and for the new president to seek an end to the war. That's the only time. One Lincoln's opponents was former General McCellan who had stated he would seek peace with the CSA if elected.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Your perspective, as with anyones, is important, provided we all understand that there are too many dependent and independent variables that must be considered, before we could even make a reasonably accurate assessment. Much depends on when the South is able to accomplish this feat. Early in the war, during the Gettysburg campaign or at the end; which I find doubtful.

What is the state of their army after the capture?

Has it taken heavy losses and is short of supplies?

Does the Union Navy still have a stranglehold on major CSA ports?

What is the status of the European nations at the time of the capture?

What is the state of the economy of the South?

What is going on in the West?

If Grant is still successful, does the capture accelerate his operations?

Does he initiate a drive from Nashville or anywhere on the Ohio or Mississippi toward the heart of the Confederacy while Southern Armies are moving northward?

Can they stop him, if they have move resources north to assist the ANV?

Lots to consider before making any real statements as to what the outcome would be. But that is how we learn and understand what actually did happen, by exploring all and more of these questions.

Fun discussion, makes one think. That never hurts.

Dennis:

Good points about the Western theater of the war. It interesting to note that with the exception of Phil Sheridan, all the good Union generals emerged from the West.

[old_pop2000]

DJ:

I am having trouble following your post here. Your statements on the war of 1812 are totally unsupportable. People would be drug out into the streets and shot as traitors? Where do you come up with this? Nothing of the kind happened even during the Revolutionary War. The British were not trying to conquer the US. They were trying to protect Canada. The entire campaign they waged was defensive in nature. DC was burned in retaliation for the US burning the city of York (now called Toronto). Almost all the battles were fought on the border of Canada or in the Northwest frontier. The British throughout history have been ruthless when necessary, but they didn't kill civilians. Show me any proof that they would have do so. I would advise you to read a good history of the War of 1812, your facts seem very questionable.

I was not trying to compare the War of 1812 with the Civil War, I was just reminded by another poster that even when DC was burned it didn't cause the US roll over and die. I hope you can understand that fact? Personally I am not even convinced that if the US took Richmond in 1864, that the South would have given up. It took the trapping of Lee's army at Appomatox to convince him and Davis that the war was lost. You win wars by defeating the armies and navies, not just by capturing cities. If the Civil War shows us anything, it was that the US was willing to pay a stiff price to preserve the Union. There were many times when resolve could have faltered, but still the troops and the people fought on. This is also try of the South. Civil wars are the worst because they usually involve idealism and passion.

In closing I'm not trying to attack you personally, I am merely attacking your arguments and I have no intention of trying to change your opinions.
One point about attacking the opponents army. In military science, the way to attack an opponents army, is to fix him in place. You must attack something, he has to defend. Attacking an army is fruitless, because it can refuse and move to another area. We see this in almost all of history. In the ACW, we see Grant focusing on attacking Richmond and Sherman focusing on Atlanta, then moving toward the coast and threatening Charleston. Why? To get the Southern armies to attempt to defend those important strategic positions, so the Southern armies could be defeated. Those positions were important for only those reasons, because of their strategic importance to the South, their armies would have to stand and fight. If they did so, they could be defeated. Simple but effective.

[Ed Rotondaro]

One point about attacking the opponents army. In military science, the way to attack an opponents army, is to fix him in place. You must attack something, he has to defend. Attacking an army is fruitless, because it can refuse and move to another area. We see this in almost all of history. In the ACW, we see Grant focusing on attacking Richmond and Sherman focusing on Atlanta, then moving toward the coast and threatening Charleston. Why? To get the Southern armies to attempt to defend those important strategic positions, so the Southern armies could be defeated. Those positions were important for only those reasons, because of their strategic importance to the South, their armies would have to stand and fight. If they did so, they could be defeated. Simple but effective.


Dennis:

No argument there. Lee was fixed at Appomatox for that very same reason.

[old_pop2000]

A possible example of the principle of attacking a place or object that must be defended is Lee's Gettysburg Campaign of 1863. I consider this a poor choice of names. It was never a Gettysburg Campaign, as such, although it was one of the locations that Lee felt a major battle might occur. It was more of a Washington or AOP Campaign.


Strategic Objective- Washington D. C.

Operational Objective - Destruction of the Army of the Potomac

Method of Advance - Indirect approach via the Shenandoah Valley to Chambersburg. Eastward advance through Carlisle, Harrisburg, heading southward toward ultimate objective of Washington.

Expected Enemy Reaction- The AOP will be fixed in position temporarily by A.P.Hill's Corp in the Fredericksburg position, while the bulk of the ANV swings around through the Shenandoah in a wide turning movement. ANV's movements will be covered by a cavalry screen provided by JEB Stuart. They will proceed up the Smokey Mt. on the right flank of army, providing screening and scouting information to the army as it proceeds up the valley. Strategic surprise is vital. The ANV must be placed behind the AOP to ensure this strategic surprise. Enemy reaction should be a quick march with all forces to a position where an engagement, on ground of the our choosing can provide us with the opportunity to destroy the bulk of the AOP.

Final movements- After the destruction of the bulk of Union forces, a vigorous pursuit by this army to complete the capture of the strategic objective- the Union capital.

Logistics- This army will detach itself from supply depots and forage for most of its requirements except ammunition. Foraging parties will be assembled and proceed ahead of the army to perform this function. All supplies so gathered, will be paid for in Confederate dollars.



If I were Lee, this would have been my operational orders to the Army of Northern Virginia. From this brief order, one can see that Lee was attempting to avoid a pitched battle until he could be safely behind Hooker and then could secure a position of his choosing, knowing that the panic in Washington and Hooker's camp of the location of the Confederate Army in close proximity to Washington would cause Hooker to attack before adequate preparation was possible. In most battles that were fought in this manner, the Union took heavy losses and this is what Lee was counting on. Note that the strategic objective was Washington, not the Union Army, whereas the operational objective was the AOP. The two objectives must compliment each other. Strategically, Lee attacked Washington, through a simple turning movement, but operationally, his goal was the destruction of the AOP.

I hope this illustrates the point, as I am limited on time, before the trip. Please accept my apologies for brevity. I can and will do better when I am not lazy and could get my books out.

[Ed Rotondaro]

A possible example of the principle of attacking a place or object that must be defended is Lee's Gettysburg Campaign of 1863. I consider this a poor choice of names. It was never a Gettysburg Campaign, as such, although it was one of the locations that Lee felt a major battle might occur. It was more of a Washington or AOP Campaign.



If I were Lee, this would have been my operational orders to the Army of Northern Virginia. From this brief order, one can see that Lee was attempting to avoid a pitched battle until he could be safely behind Hooker and then could secure a position of his choosing, knowing that the panic in Washington and Hooker's camp of the location of the Confederate Army in close proximity to Washington would cause Hooker to attack before adequate preparation was possible. In most battles that were fought in this manner, the Union took heavy losses and this is what Lee was counting on. Note that the strategic objective was Washington, not the Union Army, whereas the operational objective was the AOP. The two objectives must compliment each other. Strategically, Lee attacked Washington, through a simple turning movement, but operationally, his goal was the destruction of the AOP.

I hope this illustrates the point, as I am limited on time, before the trip. Please accept my apologies for brevity. I can and will do better when I am not lazy and could get my books out.

Dennis:

That's a good summation of the strategic versus operational aspects of Gettysburg, especially the point that Washington, not Gettysburg was the objective. Gettysburg just happened to be where the two forces met.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

That's a good summation of the strategic versus operational aspects of Gettysburg, especially the point that Washington, not Gettysburg was the objective. Gettysburg just happened to be where the two forces met.

At the start of the Campaign, the AOP and ANV faced each other in their winter quarters across the Rappahanock River at Fredericksburg. If Lee had wanted to attack Hooker, he simply had to cross the river. But Lee knew that the defense was always stronger than the offense, and that casualties were always higher. He also knew that the South was running low on soldiers, and that casualties were something his army could not tolerate. He was also aware that, even if he managed to cross and strike Hooker, Hooker could always simply retreat and occupy another position. By 1863, the defenses around Washington were almost insurmountable unless the AOP was destroyed. If it was allowed to retreat to Washington and Lee was forced into a siege, his army would be whittled away slowly. He could not afford a battle of attrition. He had to keep the conflict fluid, that was his greatest strength. He also realized that continuous fighting in the Virginia area had all but destroyed the crops that fed the people and his army, he needed to move the battle area northward. This was the germination of the 1863 Washington Campaign. It was a blending of strategic and operational objectives, that, unfortunately, failed almost immediately with Hooker's recognition of the initial objectives and Stuart's failure to perform his mission.

[djcyclone]

DJ:

I am having trouble following your post here. Your statements on the war of 1812 are totally unsupportable. People would be drug out into the streets and shot as traitors? Where do you come up with this? Nothing of the kind happened even during the Revolutionary War. The British were not trying to conquer the US. They were trying to protect Canada. The entire campaign they waged was defensive in nature. DC was burned in retaliation for the US burning the city of York (now called Toronto). Almost all the battles were fought on the border of Canada or in the Northwest frontier. The British throughout history have been ruthless when necessary, but they didn't kill civilians. Show me any proof that they would have do so. I would advise you to read a good history of the War of 1812, your facts seem very questionable.

I was not trying to compare the War of 1812 with the Civil War, I was just reminded by another poster that even when DC was burned it didn't cause the US roll over and die. I hope you can understand that fact? Personally I am not even convinced that if the US took Richmond in 1864, that the South would have given up. It took the trapping of Lee's army at Appomatox to convince him and Davis that the war was lost. You win wars by defeating the armies and navies, not just by capturing cities. If the Civil War shows us anything, it was that the US was willing to pay a stiff price to preserve the Union. There were many times when resolve could have faltered, but still the troops and the people fought on. This is also try of the South. Civil wars are the worst because they usually involve idealism and passion.

In closing I'm not trying to attack you personally, I am merely attacking your arguments and I have no intention of trying to change your opinions.



You give the British more credit then they deserve. Do not forget what started the War of 1812. The British where attacking our ships and forcing members of the crew into their ships. They justified this by saying that they where British sailors originally. One thing about the British in that day, is that they where vary patriotic. The British hated the fact that they had lost in the Revolutionary war. They considered the U.S. to still be British territory, and even refused to remove some of their forts in the central U.S.

In the Revolutionary war, civilians where killed. The British thought that they could treat the Americans anyway that they wanted, and when the war started, every American was seen as a traitor. Of course you always have officers who do follow the code of wrong and right, but you also have officers in every war that do not care. If you are the enemy, then you do not count as a human being. Take the march of Sherman to the sea for example. If I remember right, he was not ordered to do anything of the sort. He burnt everything that he came across, and you have to know that his soilders killed civilians, either with or without his knowing.

The British army in that day, was far different than they are today. The British where the king of the World, and that told some of the officers that they could do anything that they wanted, especially when supiriors where not watching. Many Americans would have been called traitors and executed. It would not have stopped with the Founding Fathers.

War is a dirty thing, and when it is at your door step, Civilians tend to act differently. This is why I said that the U.S. population fealt threatened in the War of 1812. And yes the British where trying to conquer America. They saw that as their oppertunity, because many British saw the intervention of the French as the only thing that caused them to loose America. In the War of 1812, the French had other fish to fry, and where not able to help. This was a Green light for the King's army.

Again in the Civil War the Union did not feel threatened. The average Northern civilan would not have lost anything if the North lost. The South would have stopped at Washington and simply irritated the Union with their presance. No attempt to Conquer the North would have been made. This was not the Souths goal, but rather they just wnted their independence. This means that the average civilian would not have rallied a Win at all cost cry. Chances are they would have simply given up and gave the South what they wanted.

[djcyclone]

Your perspective, as with anyones, is important, provided we all understand that there are too many dependent and independent variables that must be considered, before we could even make a reasonably accurate assessment. Much depends on when the South is able to accomplish this feat. Early in the war, during the Gettysburg campaign or at the end; which I find doubtful.

What is the state of their army after the capture?

Has it taken heavy losses and is short of supplies?

Does the Union Navy still have a stranglehold on major CSA ports?

What is the status of the European nations at the time of the capture?

What is the state of the economy of the South?

What is going on in the West?

If Grant is still successful, does the capture accelerate his operations?

Does he initiate a drive from Nashville or anywhere on the Ohio or Mississippi toward the heart of the Confederacy while Southern Armies are moving northward?

Can they stop him, if they have move resources north to assist the ANV?

Lots to consider before making any real statements as to what the outcome would be. But that is how we learn and understand what actually did happen, by exploring all and more of these questions.

Fun discussion, makes one think. That never hurts.


My original argument, was that the South could have won after the first battle. Your absolutly right about all that you have said above, and after the War was in full swing, the South had no chance at all of taking a city like Washington D.C.

That is why I said that they gave the war up with that mistake. It was a downhill slide after that. Once the Union Blockade was inplace, and full war was declared, it was impossible for the South to win. They would have had to do it when they had the chance. Right at the begining, the Union was still disorganized and the South could have taken the capital without worrying about supply lines being attacked. Once the Union got on the ball, that was impossible.

[old_pop2000]

Understand that a plan to capture Washington D.C had been offered by the commanding general of the ANV, General P.G.T. Beauregard on the 14th of July, 1861.

Enclosed is a section of an article written by P.G.T. Beauregard after the war:


This was the use besought by me in the plan of campaign I have mentioned as presented to Mr. Davis on the 14th of July, a few days before the battle, but rejected by him as impracticable, and as rather offering opportunity to the enemy to crush us. To supply the deficiency of transportation (our vehicles being few in number, and many so poor as to break down in ordinary camp service), I myself had assigned to special duty Colonel (since Governor) James L. Kemper, of Virginia, who quickly obtained for me some two hundred good wagons, to which number I had limited him so as not to arouse again the jealousy of the President's staff. If my plan of operations for the capture of Washington had been adopted, I should have considered myself thereby authorized and free to obtain, as I readily could have done, the transportation necessary. As it was - though the difficult part of this "impracticable" plan of operations had been proven feasible, that is, the concentration of the Shenandoah forces with mine (wrung later than the eleventh hour through the alarm over the march upon Richmond, and discountenanced again nervously at the twelfth hour by another alarm as to how "the enemy may vary his plans" in consequence), followed by the decisive defeat of the main Federal forces - nevertheless the army remained rooted in the spot, although we had more than fifteen thousand troops who had been not at all or but little in the battle and were perfectly organized, while the remaining commands, in the high spirits of victory, could have been reorganized at the tap of the drum, and many with improved captured arms and equipments. I had already urged my views unusual persistency, and acted on them against all but an express order to the contrary; and as they had been deliberately rejected in their ultimate scope by Mr. Davis as the commander-in-chief, I did not feel authorized to urge them further than their execution had been allowed, unless the subject were broached anew by himself. But there was no intimation of any such change of purpose, and the army, consistently with this inertia, was left unprovided for manoeuvre with transportation for its ammunition; its fortitude, moreover, as a new and volunteer army, while spending sometimes 24 hours without food, being only less wonderful than the commissary administration at Richmond, from which such a state of affairs could proceed even two weeks after the battle of Manassas. Although certain political superstitions about not consolidating the North may then have weighed against the action I proposed, they would have been light against a true military policy, if such had existed in the head of the Government. Apart from an active material ally, such as the colonies had afield and on sea in the War of Independence with Great Britain, a country in fatal war must depend on the vigor of its warfare; the more inferior the country, the bolder and more enterprising the use of its resources, especially if its frontiers are convenient to the enemy. I was convinced that our success lay in a short, quick war of desisive blows, before the Federals, with their vast resources, could build up a great military power; to which end a concerted use of our forces, immediate and sustained, was necessary, so that, weaker though we were at all separate points, we might nevertheless strike with superior strength at some chosen decisive point, and after victory there reach for victory now made easier elsewhere, and thus sum up success. Instead of this, which in war we call concentration, our actual policy was diffusion, an inferior Confederate force at each separate point defensively confronting a superior Federal force; our power daily shrinking, that of the enemy increasing; the avowed Federal policy being that of "attrition," their bigger masses grinding our smaller, one by one, to naught. Out of this state weon of the Government was, as almost always, necessary, excepting when Richmond" was immediately in danger.
Thus, in the fall of 1861, about three months after the battle of Manassas, - after throwing my whole force forward to Fairfax Court House, with outposts flaunting our flags on the hills in sight of Washington, in order to chafe the Federals to another battle, but without success, - I proposed that the army should be raised to an effective of 60,000 men, by drawing 20,000 for the immediate enterprise from several points along the seaboard, not even at that time threatened, and from our advanced position be swiftly thrown across the Potomac at a point which I had had carefully surveyed for that purpose, and moved upon the rear of Washington, thus forcing McClellan to a decisive engagement before his organization (new enlistments) was completed, and while our own army had the advantage of discipline and prestige - seasoned soldiers, whose term, however, would expire in the early part of the coming summer. This plan, approved by General Gustavus W. Smith (then immediately commanding General Johnston's own forces) as well as by General Johnston, was submitted to Mr. Davis in a conference at my headquarters, but rejected because he would not venture to strip those points of the troops we required. Even if those points had been captured, though none were then even threatened, they must have reverted as a directed consequence to so decisive a success. I was willing, then, should it have come to that, to exchange even Richmond temporarily for Washington. Yet it was precisely from similar combinations and elements that the army was made up, to enable it the next spring, under General Lee, to encounter McClellan at the very door of Richmond. If that which was accepted as a last defensive resort against an overwhelming aggressive army had been used in an enterprising offensive against that same army while yet in the raw, the same venture had been made at less general risk, less cost of valuable lives, and with greater certain results. The Federal army would have had no chance meanwhile to become tempered to that magnificent military machine which, through all its defeats and losses, remained sound, and was stronger, with its readily assimilating new strength, at the end of the war than ever before: the pressure would have been lifted from Kentucky and Missouri, and we should have maintained what is called an active defensive warfare, that is, should have taken and kept the offensive against the enemy, enforcing peace

Now, it might be Beauregard doing what many generals do, blame someone else for their mistakes or failings, however, in sum total of things, if Davis demurred to this idea, then it did not matter how successful the battle was, if the standing orders were not to venture any farther.

Link to the whole article:http://www.civilwarhome.com/bullruncampaign.htm

Apologies to the forum for the length of the quote, I felt it was important and time is at a premium for me.

Opinions?

[djcyclone]

Very interesting. I do believe that Davis was insulted by Lee on a regular basis, as not being a very good leader. Never the less, he was the commander and chief of a Nation that was not supposed to have a commander and chief.

Ultimatley it was simply ment to be.

[old_pop2000]

Very interesting. I do believe that Davis was insulted by Lee on a regular basis, as not being a very good leader. Never the less, he was the commander and chief of a Nation that was not supposed to have a commander and chief.

Ultimatley it was simply ment to be.
I am not that overpowered by Lee's generalship besides Davis's leadership. Lee's failure to understand that the main strategic center of the defense of the CSA, was in the west, not the northeast, leads me to believe he was only defending Virginia, and did not seriously consider what was transpiring in the west. I believe that he had a blind spot. Had Stonewall Jackson been CG of the ANV, there might have been some different outcomes. But that is history.

[Ed Rotondaro]

At the start of the Campaign, the AOP and ANV faced each other in their winter quarters across the Rappahanock River at Fredericksburg. If Lee had wanted to attack Hooker, he simply had to cross the river. But Lee knew that the defense was always stronger than the offense, and that casualties were always higher. He also knew that the South was running low on soldiers, and that casualties were something his army could not tolerate. He was also aware that, even if he managed to cross and strike Hooker, Hooker could always simply retreat and occupy another position. By 1863, the defenses around Washington were almost insurmountable unless the AOP was destroyed. If it was allowed to retreat to Washington and Lee was forced into a siege, his army would be whittled away slowly. He could not afford a battle of attrition. He had to keep the conflict fluid, that was his greatest strength. He also realized that continuous fighting in the Virginia area had all but destroyed the crops that fed the people and his army, he needed to move the battle area northward. This was the germination of the 1863 Washington Campaign. It was a blending of strategic and operational objectives, that, unfortunately, failed almost immediately with Hooker's recognition of the initial objectives and Stuart's failure to perform his mission.

Dennis:

Lee certainly had in the back of his mind the example of the Battle of Fredericksburg that had been fought in December and resulted in a crushing Union defeat when they tried to attack his entrenched forces across the river. It's interesting how many battles were in the same general area of Northern Virginia.

[bridav58]

I am not that overpowered by Lee's generalship besides Davis's leadership. Lee's failure to understand that the main strategic center of the defense of the CSA, was in the west, not the northeast, leads me to believe he was only defending Virginia, and did not seriously consider what was transpiring in the west. I believe that he had a blind spot. Had Stonewall Jackson been CG of the ANV, there might have been some different outcomes. But that is history.


command of all CSA forces when it mattered? I mean I think Lee was appointed to command all CSA forces only in early 1865.

[Ed Rotondaro]

You give the British more credit then they deserve. Do not forget what started the War of 1812. The British where attacking our ships and forcing members of the crew into their ships. They justified this by saying that they where British sailors originally. One thing about the British in that day, is that they where vary patriotic. The British hated the fact that they had lost in the Revolutionary war. They considered the U.S. to still be British territory, and even refused to remove some of their forts in the central U.S.

In the Revolutionary war, civilians where killed. The British thought that they could treat the Americans anyway that they wanted, and when the war started, every American was seen as a traitor. Of course you always have officers who do follow the code of wrong and right, but you also have officers in every war that do not care. If you are the enemy, then you do not count as a human being. Take the march of Sherman to the sea for example. If I remember right, he was not ordered to do anything of the sort. He burnt everything that he came across, and you have to know that his soilders killed civilians, either with or without his knowing.

The British army in that day, was far different than they are today. The British where the king of the World, and that told some of the officers that they could do anything that they wanted, especially when supiriors where not watching. Many Americans would have been called traitors and executed. It would not have stopped with the Founding Fathers.

War is a dirty thing, and when it is at your door step, Civilians tend to act differently. This is why I said that the U.S. population fealt threatened in the War of 1812. And yes the British where trying to conquer America. They saw that as their oppertunity, because many British saw the intervention of the French as the only thing that caused them to loose America. In the War of 1812, the French had other fish to fry, and where not able to help. This was a Green light for the King's army.

Again in the Civil War the Union did not feel threatened. The average Northern civilan would not have lost anything if the North lost. The South would have stopped at Washington and simply irritated the Union with their presance. No attempt to Conquer the North would have been made. This was not the Souths goal, but rather they just wnted their independence. This means that the average civilian would not have rallied a Win at all cost cry. Chances are they would have simply given up and gave the South what they wanted.

DJ:

I'm sorry, but as a trained historian I can't agree with you. You have a very distorted view of the War of 1812. Again I ask you to do some real reading on this topic. I don't blame you because for years Americans were taught a good deal of outright proganda regarding the war of 1812. Modern research has laid to rest a great deal of these mistruths. Now as a patriotic American I back my country, but as objective historian I have to study the facts. And the harsh truth is the US wanted that war and started that war. Some of the causes have become distorted over time. There was impressment of sailors from US ships. But the harsh fact is in almost every case these sailors were deserters from the Royal navy. In fact part of the reason that the USN performed so well in individual ship actions was that a good quarter of its crews were ex-British sailors. Oh by the way, the British stopped impressment before the war actually broke out and never resumed it once Napoleon was defeated and exiled.

There was interference with trade, mainly due to the ongoing Napoleonic wars. British arrogance didn't help. Also British support of Native Americans in the form of arms was not appreciated by the US, but US expansion into the tribal lands was also not appreciated by either the British or the Native Americans. But quite simply Britain was not trying to reconquer the US. This is completely false. Had she been interested in doing so, she would have sent Wellington and his army over here and it would have been game over.

The United States declared war on Britain on June 18, 1812 and then promptly attempted to invade Canada to seize it. While the British captured American territory, it was mainly to use it as a bargaining chip for the peace talks. The war was unpopular after two years and its effect on the economy was ruinous due to the British close blockade of the East coast. The performance of the US in the war has been greatly exaggerated. We lost probably three quarters of the land battles due to having a small poorly funded regular army and state militias that had forgotten how to fight. US historians for generations have trumpeted the glorious single ship naval actions and the handful of victories like New Orleans, York and the Thames as well victories over the native Americans while ignoring the repulses in Canada and the burning of DC. Had the Americans fought in the Revolutionary war the way we did in 1812, we never would have won our independence.

While civilians got killed in both wars, they were never deliberately targeted for it. The British hung captured rebels during the Revolutionary War, there certainly no record of attrocities. If Britain had won, the Founding Fathers would have certainly stretched hemp, but not ordinary citizens. You don't kill off the people that you want to govern and trade with.

Note how the war of 1812 ends. Both sides return to "status quo ante bellum" according to the Treaty of Ghent. That is there were no territorial changes on either side. Wellington himself claimed that Britain had no right to American lands. So there is nothing to support your contention that Britain wanted to conquer the US. With the return of Napoleon in 1815, Britain was more concerned with him than a costly war with the US. In fact most British forgot about the war within a generation since it was seen as part of the wars against Napoleon.

About the only thing the US won from the war of 1812 was the respect of Great Britain. Henceforth Britain never refused proper treatment to the US as an independent power.

Regarding the Civil War and your contention that the Union would have given up if the capital was captured, I have said all I intend to on that subject. Myself and at least two others have given reasons why we feel that wouldn't happen and I am not interested in changing your opinion. You believe that the war could end in one blow. OK that's your opinion. Oh in closing the North did feel threatened because they saw succession as a threat to the Union. And considering how many volunteers flocked to the colors before the war and even after Bull Run, I don't see any evidence that the North would give up. Five years of bloody warfare demonstrated that far better than anything I can say.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I am not that overpowered by Lee's generalship besides Davis's leadership. Lee's failure to understand that the main strategic center of the defense of the CSA, was in the west, not the northeast, leads me to believe he was only defending Virginia, and did not seriously consider what was transpiring in the west. I believe that he had a blind spot. Had Stonewall Jackson been CG of the ANV, there might have been some different outcomes. But that is history.

Dennis:

I think that Lee occupies a place in history similar to Rommel. Successful tactically, but not so strategically sound. He also tended to believe his mytholgy in that his troops were unbeatable and he could always win. He certainly didn't perform well at Gettysburg against Meade who was at best an average general. Also he like Rommel has been almost deified by admiring historians and it is only recently that more objective analysis of his campaigns has been done. Have a great cruise and stay safe and healthy! Make a list of any good wines you discover.:)

[old_pop2000]

As a starting place, why not read this short piece on the War of 1812 at the James Madison Archives. I believe it is a good, short read on the subject.

http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/main_pages/madison_archives/life/war1812/overview.htm

Historical research is a blending of primary documentation along with secondary and tertiary sources. It should always be accompanied by a healthy skepticism, and desire for accuracy. It should also be accompanied with a willingness to modify ones knowledge and opinions when accumulated accurate data points to another conclusion.

Down to the Sea in Ships!!:D

[djcyclone]

DJ:

I'm sorry, but as a trained historian I can't agree with you. You have a very distorted view of the War of 1812. Again I ask you to do some real reading on this topic. I don't blame you because for years Americans were taught a good deal of outright proganda regarding the war of 1812. Modern research has laid to rest a great deal of these mistruths. Now as a patriotic American I back my country, but as objective historian I have to study the facts. And the harsh truth is the US wanted that war and started that war. Some of the causes have become distorted over time. There was impressment of sailors from US ships. But the harsh fact is in almost every case these sailors were deserters from the Royal navy. In fact part of the reason that the USN performed so well in individual ship actions was that a good quarter of its crews were ex-British sailors. Oh by the way, the British stopped impressment before the war actually broke out and never resumed it once Napoleon was defeated and exiled.

There was interference with trade, mainly due to the ongoing Napoleonic wars. British arrogance didn't help. Also British support of Native Americans in the form of arms was not appreciated by the US, but US expansion into the tribal lands was also not appreciated by either the British or the Native Americans. But quite simply Britain was not trying to reconquer the US. This is completely false. Had she been interested in doing so, she would have sent Wellington and his army over here and it would have been game over.

The United States declared war on Britain on June 18, 1812 and then promptly attempted to invade Canada to seize it. While the British captured American territory, it was mainly to use it as a bargaining chip for the peace talks. The war was unpopular after two years and its effect on the economy was ruinous due to the British close blockade of the East coast. The performance of the US in the war has been greatly exaggerated. We lost probably three quarters of the land battles due to having a small poorly funded regular army and state militias that had forgotten how to fight. US historians for generations have trumpeted the glorious single ship naval actions and the handful of victories like New Orleans, York and the Thames as well victories over the native Americans while ignoring the repulses in Canada and the burning of DC. Had the Americans fought in the Revolutionary war the way we did in 1812, we never would have won our independence.

While civilians got killed in both wars, they were never deliberately targeted for it. The British hung captured rebels during the Revolutionary War, there certainly no record of attrocities. If Britain had won, the Founding Fathers would have certainly stretched hemp, but not ordinary citizens. You don't kill off the people that you want to govern and trade with.

Note how the war of 1812 ends. Both sides return to "status quo ante bellum" according to the Treaty of Ghent. That is there were no territorial changes on either side. Wellington himself claimed that Britain had no right to American lands. So there is nothing to support your contention that Britain wanted to conquer the US. With the return of Napoleon in 1815, Britain was more concerned with him than a costly war with the US. In fact most British forgot about the war within a generation since it was seen as part of the wars against Napoleon.

About the only thing the US won from the war of 1812 was the respect of Great Britain. Henceforth Britain never refused proper treatment to the US as an independent power.

Regarding the Civil War and your contention that the Union would have given up if the capital was captured, I have said all I intend to on that subject. Myself and at least two others have given reasons why we feel that wouldn't happen and I am not interested in changing your opinion. You believe that the war could end in one blow. OK that's your opinion. Oh in closing the North did feel threatened because they saw succession as a threat to the Union. And considering how many volunteers flocked to the colors before the war and even after Bull Run, I don't see any evidence that the North would give up. Five years of bloody warfare demonstrated that far better than anything I can say.



I am glad that we agree on the fact of Civilians being killed. Take the movie Patriot. Now of course the Book and Movie are Fictional, but one would be a fool to think that such things do not happen in War. This was my argument as to how the British where acting, because obviously we had slapped them in the face, and they did not like it.

As for Canada, I can not say yay, or nay on that. I do know that attacks where made in Canada during both the Revolutionay War and the War of 1812. All of which where stopped dead in their tracks. Some have mentioned that attacks even took place during the Civil War. I do not know because I have not studied anything of that sort.

Again my original argument was that the South could have won only if they took Washington right at the start. After this, it was impossible, but that is old so lets move on. As to the War of 1812, I have always understood our victory in that war as being similar in nature to that of Vietnam. The British had beaten our forces in every theater, but we simply did not give up, and would not surrender. The British eventually gave up because they could not afford to stay here and continue to mess with us, escpecially with France and the trouble that would soon rise.

I still have to disagree with civilians feeling threatened by the South. My argument for this, is that their wher a considerable amount of people in the North that where sympothizers of the South. I was only hypothisizing what could have been.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I am glad that we agree on the fact of Civilians being killed. Take the movie Patriot. Now of course the Book and Movie are Fictional, but one would be a fool to think that such things do not happen in War. This was my argument as to how the British where acting, because obviously we had slapped them in the face, and they did not like it.

As for Canada, I can not say yay, or nay on that. I do know that attacks where made in Canada during both the Revolutionay War and the War of 1812. All of which where stopped dead in their tracks. Some have mentioned that attacks even took place during the Civil War. I do not know because I have not studied anything of that sort.

Again my original argument was that the South could have won only if they took Washington right at the start. After this, it was impossible, but that is old so lets move on. As to the War of 1812, I have always understood our victory in that war as being similar in nature to that of Vietnam. The British had beaten our forces in every theater, but we simply did not give up, and would not surrender. The British eventually gave up because they could not afford to stay here and continue to mess with us, escpecially with France and the trouble that would soon rise.

I still have to disagree with civilians feeling threatened by the South. My argument for this, is that their wher a considerable amount of people in the North that where sympothizers of the South. I was only hypothisizing what could have been.

DJ:

Regarding civilian casualties in wartime, of course they occur. My point was that compared to say the sack of a medieval city or the intentional brutality of the Thirty Years War, during the time period we are discussing, armies fought each other, not the civilians. The American Revolution and the War of 1812 still to a degree fall under the time known as the Age of Enlightenment. Most armies were professional standing organizations. Even during Seven Years War with just about of Europe fighting, you don't see cities sacked and non-combatants murdered. During the Revolutionary War, when one could almost expect such things to occur, the British occupied at various times, Boston, New York and Philadelphia. the cities remained intact and their populations were not subjected to brutalities. I'm certain that there instances of rape and murder, but they not common practice. Indeed the burning of Washinton during the war of 1812 was more of an act of revenge for the US burning Toronto than a deliberate policy.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the US won the War of 1812. At best it was a draw and at worst we avoided losing it. Look at the facts, we started a war and didn't gain anything or lose anything. That's just surviving, that's not victory. Trust me I went all the way thru college believing that we beat the British until another student of history got me to study the period. It was a bit deflating and several misconceptions were cleared up. It was a learning process. I wouldn't say that the British gave up as much as both sides wanted to the end war and entered into peace negotiations that dragged out long enough for the US to clinch one last victory at New Orleans. The US was almost economically crippled by the war.

[bridav58]

winning the respect of the British sure helped in territorial disputes later on. Another thing that war broke the back of the Indians enableing the US to expand and no mistake about it we weren't just at war with the British but also the Indians and they were the only real loosers of that war. Now as far as impressment is concerned even if the US ships had desserters the RN had no right to stop US ships and search them for that reason. If they did have that right then the UK had absolutely no right to complain during the Trent Affair. A little better diplomacy by both sides would have stopped the whole thing from escalating.
Have you ever read "Splintering the Wooden Wall" by Wade G. Dudley??? It dispells alot of myths about the success of the RN's blockade. It's also very funny that the UK was still buying US algricultural goods even while the war was going on.

[Ed Rotondaro]

winning the respect of the British sure helped in territorial disputes later on. Another thing that war broke the back of the Indians enableing the US to expand and no mistake about it we weren't just at war with the British but also the Indians and they were the only real loosers of that war. Now as far as impressment is concerned even if the US ships had desserters the RN had no right to stop US ships and search them for that reason. If they did have that right then the UK had absolutely no right to complain during the Trent Affair. A little better diplomacy by both sides would have stopped the whole thing from escalating.
Have you ever read "Splintering the Wooden Wall" by Wade G. Dudley??? It dispells alot of myths about the success of the RN's blockade. It's also very funny that the UK was still buying US algricultural goods even while the war was going on.

Hi:

I agree. The whole problem with impressment was twofold: Britain maintained that any British born citizen who was claiming American citizenship was still subject to the Kings's law. Also many Americans lacked any kind of papers to prove their citizenship. Many sailors seized by impressment were later repatriated after legal suits were pressed. The problem with Impressment is that it stuck in the craw of the newly independent USA. Britain without any concern of national status just decided to do whatever it wanted to because she at war and felt threatened. The whole blockade of France was mirrored in the First World War and the US was just about as angry then as they were in 1812. But the difference was better diplomacy and far better propaganda coupled with in this case German arrogance.

The sad fate of Native Americans is a topic so charged with passion and politics that I won't even address it save to say that you are right, they were the losers. (Hope Chris will allow this through).

Good post!

[bridav58]

The sad fate of Native Americans is a topic so charged with passion and politics that I won't even address it save to say that you are right, they were the losers. (Hope Chris will allow this through).

Good post![/quote]

Well I feel the US should really be far more embarrassed about the treatment of the Indians , The Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War then the War of 1812. Ther Indians sure did get the shaft and I'll just leave it at that.

[djcyclone]

The sad fate of Native Americans is a topic so charged with passion and politics that I won't even address it save to say that you are right, they were the losers. (Hope Chris will allow this through).

Good post!



You should not worry so much about upsetting people. I am 25% Cherokee Indian, and my father is somewher close to 50%. He really shows his percentage, and even though people tell me that I do, I disagree with them. To the point, I am not insulted when I see history, and even read of things like the Trail Of Tears, which directly effected the Cherokee. I do not support it, but the Indians in my opinion braught about their own fate. They refused to fight as one, and maintained a seperated stance at all times.

When the Sioux Indians joined as one, they where able to defeat one of the best Calvary Commanders during the Civil War, with little cost to themselves. However they seperated shortly after that, and where picked off one by one.

When the European Nations where still fighting under rules of Gentlman Warfare, the Indians where vary smart to know how to hide when they heard the "Ready, Aim, Fire" warning. In my opinion, the Indians could have avoided their fate if they had put asside their differences and fought as one Nation. Their seperation is what led them to be conquered.

Again I do not agree with what some people did, like the raids of Custer on Women and Children. I just think that Indians could have handed everyone their tails if they had fought together. It is all History, and the only thing that you can do is tell yourself that it happened for a reason.

A strong thing that I do disagree with is even today, in the "Civilized World" that we claim to live in, we still hold on to the concepts of the Reservations. I was really suprised, to read a document not long ago that spoke of how hard it is for Indians to get off of the Reservations and become U.S. Citizens. The document spoke of how it is easier for an American man to marry a women from another Country and get her into America, then it is for the same man to marry an Indian and get her off of the Reservation. This is very strange especially to me, because my Great Great Grandfather was born on a Reservation, and after Killing one of his teachers in a knife fight, he ran from ther Reservation to avoid prosecution, and easily became an American Citizen.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The sad fate of Native Americans is a topic so charged with passion and politics that I won't even address it save to say that you are right, they were the losers. (Hope Chris will allow this through).

Good post!

Well I feel the US should really be far more embarrassed about the treatment of the Indians , The Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War then the War of 1812. Ther Indians sure did get the shaft and I'll just leave it at that.[/QUOTE]

Brian (correct?):

I agree about the Spanish American War, we wanted that war so bad it was embarrasing. The Mexican American war was not much better in terms of naked aggression outside of our desire for Texas to join the US and Mexico's refusal to recognize it.

[john964]

You should not worry so much about upsetting people. I am 25% Cherokee Indian, and my father is somewher close to 50%. He really shows his percentage, and even though people tell me that I do, I disagree with them. To the point, I am not insulted when I see history, and even read of things like the Trail Of Tears, which directly effected the Cherokee. I do not support it, but the Indians in my opinion braught about their own fate. They refused to fight as one, and maintained a seperated stance at all times.

When the Sioux Indians joined as one, they where able to defeat one of the best Calvary Commanders during the Civil War, with little cost to themselves. However they seperated shortly after that, and where picked off one by one.

When the European Nations where still fighting under rules of Gentlman Warfare, the Indians where vary smart to know how to hide when they heard the "Ready, Aim, Fire" warning. In my opinion, the Indians could have avoided their fate if they had put asside their differences and fought as one Nation. Their seperation is what led them to be conquered.

Again I do not agree with what some people did, like the raids of Custer on Women and Children. I just think that Indians could have handed everyone their tails if they had fought together. It is all History, and the only thing that you can do is tell yourself that it happened for a reason.

A strong thing that I do disagree with is even today, in the "Civilized World" that we claim to live in, we still hold on to the concepts of the Reservations. I was really suprised, to read a document not long ago that spoke of how hard it is for Indians to get off of the Reservations and become U.S. Citizens. The document spoke of how it is easier for an American man to marry a women from another Country and get her into America, then it is for the same man to marry an Indian and get her off of the Reservation. This is very strange especially to me, because my Great Great Grandfather was born on a Reservation, and after Killing one of his teachers in a knife fight, he ran from ther Reservation to avoid prosecution, and easily became an American Citizen.Your facts are not intirely correct Native Americans were granted US Citizenship in 1927. But that is not to say there has not been big problems like the ongoing financial mess of the US BIA. This is money owed to the various US tribes in the form of royalties for mineral rights and explotation of resources. I beleive the amount owed is somewhere between 5 and 20 billion dollers US. IIRC the BIA has absolutly no idea how much is owed to the tribes,

[Ed Rotondaro]

You should not worry so much about upsetting people. I am 25% Cherokee Indian, and my father is somewher close to 50%. He really shows his percentage, and even though people tell me that I do, I disagree with them. To the point, I am not insulted when I see history, and even read of things like the Trail Of Tears, which directly effected the Cherokee. I do not support it, but the Indians in my opinion braught about their own fate. They refused to fight as one, and maintained a seperated stance at all times.

When the Sioux Indians joined as one, they where able to defeat one of the best Calvary Commanders during the Civil War, with little cost to themselves. However they seperated shortly after that, and where picked off one by one.

When the European Nations where still fighting under rules of Gentlman Warfare, the Indians where vary smart to know how to hide when they heard the "Ready, Aim, Fire" warning. In my opinion, the Indians could have avoided their fate if they had put asside their differences and fought as one Nation. Their seperation is what led them to be conquered.

Again I do not agree with what some people did, like the raids of Custer on Women and Children. I just think that Indians could have handed everyone their tails if they had fought together. It is all History, and the only thing that you can do is tell yourself that it happened for a reason.

A strong thing that I do disagree with is even today, in the "Civilized World" that we claim to live in, we still hold on to the concepts of the Reservations. I was really suprised, to read a document not long ago that spoke of how hard it is for Indians to get off of the Reservations and become U.S. Citizens. The document spoke of how it is easier for an American man to marry a women from another Country and get her into America, then it is for the same man to marry an Indian and get her off of the Reservation. This is very strange especially to me, because my Great Great Grandfather was born on a Reservation, and after Killing one of his teachers in a knife fight, he ran from ther Reservation to avoid prosecution, and easily became an American Citizen.

DJ:

Thanks for the insights into the Native American experience. I too have long wondered why the reservations are still in existence and that Native Americans have not been mainstreamed. It's almost as if the idea is to keep them isolated and downtrodden which angers me.

Coming from NYS, I grew up learning about the Iroquois Confederacy of five tribes that acted remarkably like nation. You don't see that anywhere else. I wonder was it linguistic or other tribal differences that kept the Native Americans from operating as one people? There were certainly enough instances of Native Americans fighting wars against each other. I guess a good example is to compare the situations in Iraq and Somalia where tribal/clan affiliation trumps any sense of national identity.

[john964]

DJ:

Thanks for the insights into the Native American experience. I too have long wondered why the reservations are still in existence and that Native Americans have not been mainstreamed. It's almost as if the idea is to keep them isolated and downtrodden which angers me.

Coming from NYS, I grew up learning about the Iroquois Confederacy of five tribes that acted remarkably like nation. You don't see that anywhere else. I wonder was it linguistic or other tribal differences that kept the Native Americans from operating as one people? There were certainly enough instances of Native Americans fighting wars against each other. I guess a good example is to compare the situations in Iraq and Somalia where tribal/clan affiliation trumps any sense of national identity.Ed, Some of the tribes didn't like each other, and had long standing antipithy or were at war with each other. It is a lot like South Africa before the end of apartid. There were two main oppition groups IIRC were the Xhosa lead African National Congress and the Zulu lead African Freedom Party. The Zulu's and the Xhosa didn't get along with each other (they had been waring with each other for several hunderd years) and the white South Africans played on that by stirring up animosity between the two and playing them off against each other. IIRC several of the native american tribes were constantly waring with each other. IIRC the Navaho and the Hopi wared with the Apache and the Kiowa, The Ute's hated the Pyute's.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed, Some of the tribes didn't like each other, and had long standing antipithy or were at war with each other. It is a lot like South Africa before the end of apartid. There were two main oppition groups IIRC were the Xhosa lead African National Congress and the Zulu lead African Freedom Party. The Zulu's and the Xhosa didn't get along with each other (they had been waring with each other for several hunderd years) and the white South Africans played on that by stirring up animosity between the two and playing them off against each other. IIRC several of the native american tribes were constantly waring with each other. IIRC the Navaho and the Hopi wared with the Apache and the Kiowa, The Ute's hated the Pyute's.

John:

Mel Gibson's last movie "Apocalypto" tried to show the tremendous animosity that certain Mexican tribal groups had towards ech other. Admittedly he took liberties, but the point was there was plenty of conflict going on before the Europeans arrived.

[djcyclone]

DJ:

Thanks for the insights into the Native American experience. I too have long wondered why the reservations are still in existence and that Native Americans have not been mainstreamed. It's almost as if the idea is to keep them isolated and downtrodden which angers me.

Coming from NYS, I grew up learning about the Iroquois Confederacy of five tribes that acted remarkably like nation. You don't see that anywhere else. I wonder was it linguistic or other tribal differences that kept the Native Americans from operating as one people? There were certainly enough instances of Native Americans fighting wars against each other. I guess a good example is to compare the situations in Iraq and Somalia where tribal/clan affiliation trumps any sense of national identity.



Their are instances of the Indians fighting together other than the Last Stand of Custer. Recent looks into old Viking setlements in Northern Canada, and Greenland, indicate that the Vikings did in fact wonder into presant day Maine and maybe even further down. Historians and Archiologist are finding things in old Viking setlments that could only have been found in the Northern United States. The question then, is why did they not move south and explore further in force. The only answer that seems accurate, is that something kept driving them back, and they did not have the man power to continue the fight. Quite strange when you figure that Vikings basicaly lived to fight.

This may be a sign of Indians coming together to fight one enemy. Why they did not do the same for the Europeans of the 16th, 17th, and 18th Century is anyone's guess.

[john964]

Their are instances of the Indians fighting together other than the Last Stand of Custer. Recent looks into old Viking setlements in Northern Canada, and Greenland, indicate that the Vikings did in fact wonder into presant day Maine and maybe even further down. Historians and Archiologist are finding things in old Viking setlments that could only have been found in the Northern United States. The question then, is why did they not move south and explore further in force. The only answer that seems accurate, is that something kept driving them back, and they did not have the man power to continue the fight. Quite strange when you figure that Vikings basicaly lived to fight.

This may be a sign of Indians coming together to fight one enemy. Why they did not do the same for the Europeans of the 16th, 17th, and 18th Century is anyone's guess.

More than likely Quantity is a Quality all its own, You have to wonder how many Norsman colonest there were in each settlment 100-200 and only 30-40% worriors the rest would be non combatants ie women and childern. Norsemen are Norsemen not Vikings, Viking is the Norse word for raiding.

[asnrobert]

DJ:

Thanks for the insights into the Native American experience. I too have long wondered why the reservations are still in existence and that Native Americans have not been mainstreamed. It's almost as if the idea is to keep them isolated and downtrodden which angers me.

Coming from NYS, I grew up learning about the Iroquois Confederacy of five tribes that acted remarkably like nation. You don't see that anywhere else. I wonder was it linguistic or other tribal differences that kept the Native Americans from operating as one people? There were certainly enough instances of Native Americans fighting wars against each other. I guess a good example is to compare the situations in Iraq and Somalia where tribal/clan affiliation trumps any sense of national identity.

I grew up in NY and learned about the Five Nations. From what I recall, the tribal leaders wouldn't act unless they voted unanimously. Often they didn't and thus was their downfall.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Their are instances of the Indians fighting together other than the Last Stand of Custer. Recent looks into old Viking setlements in Northern Canada, and Greenland, indicate that the Vikings did in fact wonder into presant day Maine and maybe even further down. Historians and Archiologist are finding things in old Viking setlments that could only have been found in the Northern United States. The question then, is why did they not move south and explore further in force. The only answer that seems accurate, is that something kept driving them back, and they did not have the man power to continue the fight. Quite strange when you figure that Vikings basicaly lived to fight.

This may be a sign of Indians coming together to fight one enemy. Why they did not do the same for the Europeans of the 16th, 17th, and 18th Century is anyone's guess.

DJ:

I read an article on that in National Geographic. The main premise is that the Vikings weapons were really not that much better (outside of swords) than the Native Americans and there were far more Native Americans than Norsemen.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I grew up in NY and learned about the Five Nations. From what I recall, the tribal leaders wouldn't act unless they voted unanimously. Often they didn't and thus was their downfall.

Robert:

Sometimes consensus is a bad thing.

[Kyle Holgate]

wow, when you guys go off topic you can really go off topic! Wish I had the patience to read the entire thread line from start to finish to see how Pearl harbor warnings lead to discussions on the native americans! ;)

[djcyclone]

wow, when you guys go off topic you can really go off topic! Wish I had the patience to read the entire thread line from start to finish to see how Pearl harbor warnings lead to discussions on the native americans! ;)



Wrong thread. That discussion is one line down. This was the discussion that started with the Civil War.