The lost cause mythology

[Mott the Hoople]

The South could never really win, they had nowhere near the manpower and were not even able to manufacture their own weapons. The blockade of southern ports, albeit somewhat porous, succeeded for the most part in depriving southerners of the materiel they needed to successfully prosecute the war.

You're just flat out wrong there Tom. That's another lost cause mythology that historians have debunked. The South damned well could have won. You only need to look at the American Revolutionary War and our recent history with the Vietnam war. Both were wars in which the defenders were at substantial disadvantage in manpower and materials but managed to win.

Here's the advantages the South had going into the Civil War and for the first couple of years;

The had a large population with around 9 million people. About half the Unions population.
They had a vast geography of about the size of all of Western Europe in their favor.
They had excellent interior lines of defense via the Appalachian mountains and the vast river networks that made excellent defensive positions.
They had a competent and large military. In 1862 the CSA had the fourth largest military in the world.
The were economically powerful and the resources to sustain a lengthy defensive war. In fact, at that time, the CSA had the 6 th largest economy in the world.
They had an agricultural advantage over the Union in food production.

Keep in mind again for the Confederacy a military stalemate was a victory. The did need to invade and conquer or defeat the Union forces to win.

Here's where they failed to win.

The Confederate form of government made administrative governing of the independent States extremely difficult in peace time and was disastrous in war. The Confederate government did not take a strong central role until it was too late.

They did not use all their available manpower. They refused to use slaves not only for military purposes but failed to utilize them for civilian services supporting the war.

They militarily wasted their defensive advantages and manpower through wreckless offensive campaigns that were contradictory to their governments strategic goals and wasted resources and manpower they could not afford to waste.

So the Confederacy very well could have won, as history has proven, but lost because of weak central government, inability to properly utilize their vast resources and their wasting of their strategic military defensive advantages by their military
Commanders.

 

[cancel2 2022]

You're just flat out wrong there Tom. That's another lost cause mythology that historians have debunked. The South damned well could have won. You only need to look at the American Revolutionary War and our recent history with the Vietnam war. Both were wars in which the defenders were at substantial disadvantage in manpower and materials but managed to win.

Here's the advantages the South had going into the Civil War and for the first couple of years;

The had a large population with around 9 million people. About half the Unions population.
They had a vast geography of about the size of all of Western Europe in their favor.
They had excellent interior lines of defense via the Appalachian mountains and the vast river networks that made excellent defensive positions.
They had a competent and large military. In 1862 the CSA had the fourth largest military in the world.
The were economically powerful and the resources to sustain a lengthy defensive war. In fact, at that time, the CSA had the 6 th largest economy in the world.
They had an agricultural advantage over the Union in food production.

Keep in mind again for the Confederacy a military stalemate was a victory. The did need to invade and conquer or defeat the Union forces to win.

Here's where they failed to win.

The Confederate form of government made administrative governing of the independent States extremely difficult in peace time and was disastrous in war. The Confederate government did not take a strong central role until it was too late.

They did not use all their available manpower. They refused to use slaves not only for military purposes but failed to utilize them for civilian services supporting the war.

They militarily wasted their defensive advantages and manpower through wreckless offensive campaigns that were contradictory to their governments strategic goals and wasted resources and manpower they could not afford to waste.

So the Confederacy very well could have won, as history has proven, but lost because of weak central government, inability to properly utilize their vast resources and their wasting of their strategic military defensive advantages by their military
Commanders.

Ok, I am turning in but you're wrong about the relative populations! Consequently there was a huge difference in the size of their armies.

According to the census of 1860 the population of the United States numbered 31,443,321 persons. Approximately 23,000,000 of them were in the twenty-two northern states and 9,000,000 in the eleven states that later seceded. Of the latter total, 3,500,000 were slaves.

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-civilwar/5463

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Ok, I am turning in but you're wrong about the relative populations! Consequently there was a huge difference in the size of their armies.

According to the census of 1860 the population of the United States numbered 31,443,321 persons. Approximately 23,000,000 of them were in the twenty-two northern states and 9,000,000 in the eleven states that later seceded. Of the latter total, 3,500,000 were slaves.

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-civilwar/5463

I said the Union had about double the manpower. 2.5 is a more accurate figure. So what? In 1780 the British population was around 8 million and the US population about 3 million. In 1970 the US population was 200 million. North Vietnam was around 22 million. The defenders still won those wars. Also, let's not make excuses as to why the Confederacy didn't use all of their available manpower and wasted a large measure of that which they did utilize. The fact is they did both.

This does not change the fact that the Confederacy could have won. Try telling those who fought the South they didn't have a chance to win.

If the Confederacy had a leader of George Washington's ability they probably would have won. Lee was no Washington by a long shot.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Ok, I am turning in but you're wrong about the relative populations! Consequently there was a huge difference in the size of their armies.

According to the census of 1860 the population of the United States numbered 31,443,321 persons. Approximately 23,000,000 of them were in the twenty-two northern states and 9,000,000 in the eleven states that later seceded. Of the latter total, 3,500,000 were slaves.

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-civilwar/5463

Good night Tom. Nice chatting with you.

 

[MAGA MAN]

you mean Southern Conservatives cause they were largely Democrats in 1860.

Only one word is needed to describe those folks: Democrats.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Only one word is needed to describe those folks: Democrats.

Yes well it's nice to know that human beings are static things that never change. Thank you for your commentary.

 

[MAGA MAN]

Yes well it's nice to know that human beings are static things that never change. Thank you for your commentary.

What has changed? Democrats still believe that the wealthy get that way off the backs of the poor.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

What has changed? Democrats still believe that the wealthy get that way off the backs of the poor.

You mean like how Republicans think they hit a home run when they were born on third base?

You know like in College where the Republicans preached self sufficiency while their parents paid their tuition and looked down their noses at Democrat students because they had to work two jobs to pay for theirs.

 

[Ralph]

I obviously have a strong interest in the History of the American Civil War. It, along with American Colonial and frontier history and the history of the Roman Republic are topics I've read widely and enjoy immensely.

I've probably read around thirty works on Civil War History including Levine, Batton and Foote who are probably the three most prominent American historians of the Civil War. I've also read James McPherson, Stephen Ambrose, Lydell Hart, John Keegan, Ed Bonekemper, Burke Davis, etc, not to mention primary and secondary sources.

Probably the most pernicious influence in the writings of Civil War history, including some of the authors above, is the mythology of "The Lost Cause.". The lost cause mythology of the American Civil War is characterized by beliefs that are factually wrong and originated as a propaganda campaign about twenty years after the Civil War by Southern Historians who felt compelled to rationalize the Confederacies loss while the Northern attitude was largely to move on and rebuild the American economy. The Characteristics of the lost cause mythology are;

The Confederacy could not have won the war due to the Unions advantage in manpower and resources.

That slavery was a benevolent institution for all involved and that by 1861 was a dying institution.

That States rights and not slavery was the cause of the war.

That Robert E. Lee was not only a great general but one of the greatest Generals in American history.

That Gen Longstreet was responsible for the Confederate debacle at Gettysburg and not Lee.

That U.S. Grant was an incompetent butcher who only won by numerical superiority.

That the Union won by waging unprecedented Total War against the South.

The fact that these mythogies have become pervasive in our teaching of Civil War history considering its relevance today and how easily they are refuted by primary source materials is disconcerting given how the actual facts of the war were accepted during and immediately after the Civil War and how modern historians are now doing excellent work debunking the historical revisionism that created these mythologies in the late 19th century and how relevant it is that these mythogies be debunked given their near universal acceptance by the far righ white supremacist movement.

Right...its a myth that Slavery died in England (the parent of the US).....and in the Islands like PR. It never happened its just a myth. Its a myth that the Industrial Revolution was quickly replacing man power with machinery....the Cotton Gin was just an illusion...etc. Get a life and stop with the attempt to REVISE HISTORY to meet your communist propaganda. Just prove that slavery never ended in nations like England...or PR....or there was no Industrialization of labor.

While on the other hand you are quick to blame industrialization for the loss of mining jobs today. Pick a lane. And I call Bull Shit on your attempt to claim that you are some expert on history..obviously you parroted the misinformation because its simply not so...as Mr. Reagan said, "Its not that our liberal friends are ignorant. Its just that so much they know is simply not so." Paraphrased, "they are immature smart ass know it all's...."

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Right...its a myth that Slavery died in England (the parent of the US).....and in the Islands like PR. It never happened its just a myth. Its a myth that the Industrial Revolution was quickly replacing man power with machinery....the Cotton Gin was just an illusion...etc. Get a life and stop with the attempt to REVISE HISTORY to meet your communist propaganda. Just prove that slavery never ended in nations like England...or PR....or there was no Industrialization of labor.

While on the other hand you are quick to blame industrialization for the loss of mining jobs today. Pick a lane. And I call Bull Shit on your attempt to claim that you are some expert on history..obviously you parroted the misinformation because its simply not so...as Mr. Reagan said, "Its not that our liberal friends are ignorant. Its just that so much they know is simply not so." Paraphrased, "they are immature smart ass know it all's...."

Well first of all I never claimed to be an expert on Civil War history. I've claimed to have read a lot of books, including primary sources on Civil War History.

LOL Revising history? All the facts I've stated came from primary sources. Some student of history you are! LOL

There isn't a thing about the mythologies I presented that are not contradicted by cold hard fact. I defy you to defend these mythologies using fact.

 

[Ralph]

Well first of all I never claimed to be an expert on Civil War history. I've claimed to have read a lot of books, including primary sources on Civil War History.

LOL Revising history? All the facts I've stated came from primary sources. Some student of history you are! LOL

There isn't a thing about the mythologies I presented that are not contradicted by cold hard fact. I defy you to defend these mythologies using fact.

Regardless of source....a blatant lie is a blatant lie. Perhaps you would not be known as a liar if you would simply stop parroting obvious lies. Facts are facts. Slavery was dying as human labor was quickly being replaced by mechanical invention....soon the south and the institute of slavery would have been economically non viable. The real reason for the war that cost over 750 thousand US lives was a states rights issue. Hell....slavery was never mentioned as a "cause" until Lincoln used it as a platform in running for his 2nd term in office. One of the biggest slave states was Maryland....and it fought on the side of the North. Why? The industrial revolution was knocking on the door....the fate of slavery was sealed.

Truth is truth. The north was represented by nothing short of a despotic administration that pissed on the constitution....jailing reporters that disagreed with the approach, even deporting some that disagreed. The war was simply blood lusting carnage. But...it was settled 150 years ago...why incite with revised history? You are a democrat its who you are its what you do, its what you have been indoctrinated to do. A snake can be nothing but a snake. My job as I see it is to simply promote THE TRUTH that is objective and easily documented.

 

[MAGA MAN]

You mean like how Republicans think they hit a home run when they were born on third base?

You know like in College where the Republicans preached self sufficiency while their parents paid their tuition and looked down their noses at Democrat students because they had to work two jobs to pay for theirs.

That's hilarious, injecting your personal anecdotes which have nothing to do with the subject, to deflect from debate, because you know what I wrote is true.

 

[Minister of Truth]

You mean like how Republicans think they hit a home run when they were born on third base?

You know like in College where the Republicans preached self sufficiency while their parents paid their tuition and looked down their noses at Democrat students because they had to work two jobs to pay for theirs.

You've been out of college for a while, or else you accidentally swapped labels around.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Regardless of source....a blatant lie is a blatant lie. Perhaps you would not be known as a liar if you would simply stop parroting obvious lies. Facts are facts. Slavery was dying as human labor was quickly being replaced by mechanical invention....soon the south and the institute of slavery would have been economically non viable. The real reason for the war that cost over 750 thousand US lives was a states rights issue. Hell....slavery was never mentioned as a "cause" until Lincoln used it as a platform in running for his 2nd term in office. One of the biggest slave states was Maryland....and it fought on the side of the North. Why? The industrial revolution was knocking on the door....the fate of slavery was sealed.

Truth is truth. The north was represented by nothing short of a despotic administration that pissed on the constitution....jailing reporters that disagreed with the approach, even deporting some that disagreed. The war was simply blood lusting carnage. But...it was settled 150 years ago...why incite with revised history? You are a democrat its who you are its what you do, its what you have been indoctrinated to do. A snake can be nothing but a snake. My job as I see it is to simply promote THE TRUTH that is objective and easily documented.

Tell that to the authors of the secession documents, who didn't mention the economics of slavery, and, of course, never talked about state's rights.

 

[MAGA MAN]

You've been out of college for a while, or else you accidentally swapped labels around.

Which destroys his stated reasoning for joining the 'rat party. LOLZ

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Regardless of source....a blatant lie is a blatant lie. Perhaps you would not be known as a liar if you would simply stop parroting obvious lies. Facts are facts. Slavery was dying as human labor was quickly being replaced by mechanical invention....soon the south and the institute of slavery would have been economically non viable. The real reason for the war that cost over 750 thousand US lives was a states rights issue. Hell....slavery was never mentioned as a "cause" until Lincoln used it as a platform in running for his 2nd term in office. One of the biggest slave states was Maryland....and it fought on the side of the North. Why? The industrial revolution was knocking on the door....the fate of slavery was sealed.

Truth is truth. The north was represented by nothing short of a despotic administration that pissed on the constitution....jailing reporters that disagreed with the approach, even deporting some that disagreed. The war was simply blood lusting carnage. But...it was settled 150 years ago...why incite with revised history? You are a democrat its who you are its what you do, its what you have been indoctrinated to do. A snake can be nothing but a snake. My job as I see it is to simply promote THE TRUTH that is objective and easily documented.

If slavery was dying in the South how comes the price of surplus slaves had risen steadily until reaching an all time high in 1860, the slave population had grown substantially and the Souths GDP using slave labor had also grown to an all time high?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That's hilarious, injecting your personal anecdotes which have nothing to do with the subject, to deflect from debate, because you know what I wrote is true.

No i wrote it as sarcasm cause it was a silly, not to mention completely anachronistic thing to say.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Which destroys his stated reasoning for joining the 'rat party. LOLZ

when I was a young Republican in college I was the only one in our group who was paying his own tuition.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Tell that to the authors of the secession documents, who didn't mention the economics of slavery, and, of course, never talked about state's rights.

The Southern States were actually asking for less States Rights and were demanding greater enforcement of the fugitive slave act to be enforced by the Federal Government on the Northern States who were ignoring it and not returning slaves.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

They were also demanding that the Federal Government enforce their right to take their slaves into the territories where it was not legal.