The Confederacy was About Slavery

In what manner was not the South far weaker then the North in all aspects of war fighting means?????

In what ways was not the military leadership of the South so damn superior that they almost was able to balance out their shortcoming in manpower and industrial resources.

There was no existing threat to the south rights to have slavery on their own territories but that is beyond the simple minded picture you would like to paint.

So you consider Braxton Bragg to have been superior? You consider P G T Beauregard to have been superior? What happened at Shiloh? What happened at Antietam? What happened at Gettysburg?

The one officer in the south who could be reasonably described as being as competent or more competent than the officers of the Federal armies was Thomas Jackson, and he died of wounds in 1863, after Chancellorsville and before Gettysburg. Lee is made some kind of military saint, even though he consistently failed to order basic staff work done before launching his operations, did not control his general officers well and was profligate of the lives of his men. Jackson, and possibly Longstreet, might have done more with that army, but neither of them ever commanded that army.

No, far from balancing the manpower shortage, southern officers consistently squandered their human resources in pointless attacks. I suggest that you read Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage, G. McWhiney and P. D. Jamieson, University of Alabama Press, 1980. I consider the "heritage" part of it to be hilarious bullshit--but there is no doubt that the authors have hit the nail on the head in their criticism of southern tactical doctrine. Adopting a strategic defense, to the point that troops spent the war defending territory against attacks that never came, the tactical doctrine was to attack Federal forces whenever and wherever possible. This lead to horrible bloodlettings, which, even when accounted a victory, cost the South more than it could afford. The Seven Days, Shiloh, Pea Ridge, Iuka, Cedar Mountain, Antietam, Gettysburg, Bristoe Station, the Wilderness, the battles around Atlanta--the South only stopped its insane attacks when they had so bled white their armies that they no longer could mount attacks.

As usual, it's you with the comic book view of history.

So you ran in here and started spewing your bullshit without reading the thread, huh? I've already pointed out that due to their constitutional advantage, there was no threat to slavery as long as the southern states did not secede. That's why i said perceived threat, bright boy--perceived rather than real. You're a fuckin' idiot.

My simple minded friend who think that nothing short of the slavery issue could provoke an arm rebellion in the US I would like to point out that the first arm challenge to the Federal government powers was over taxing whiskey not slavery.

It didn't lead to a war, though, did it. You're simple minded, but i assure you that you are not, and never will be my friend.

LOL so the leadership of the south was not bright enough to see what both you and I can see clearly that there was not threat to slavery on the horizon in 1861?

PUHLEEZE. Give the people od the South the intelligence that they deserve to be able to sort out the issues of history and not have it "overpainted with pastel colors of bullshit revisionism". The southerners may certainly gain plenty from their history and the events that occured in their names ( but several generations their antecedents).
They are also smart enough to not have to cover up the facts of the Confederacy as you seem to want to do. We had plenty of wasrts as a nation. Many of them are still growing. We dont need to make up some bullshit that the south was about something that it really wasnt. I think the historical clips in this thread speak for themselves. If you wish to deny them, then please present alternative EVIDENCE, not mere emotion.

Much of history is living down **** that our ancestors did. LIke I said before, history is what it is. It isnt an oil painting, its a blueprint.

By the way, Mr. Straw Man, at no time did i state or imply that "nothing short of the slavery issue could provoke an armed rebellion." I just pointed out that the South did not start a war until there was a perceived threat to the institution of slavery. And for your information, bright boy, the first "armed rebellion" was Shays' rebellion in western Massachusetts in 1786-87, years before the so-called Whiskey rebellion.

Laugh to your heart's content--they were spoiling for a fight. They were looking for trouble before Lincoln was even elected. Check into the behavior of John Floyd when he was Buchanan's Secretary of War--in 1860, he shipped over 100,000 muskets and rifled-muskets to southern arsenals from the Federal Arsenal in St. Louis. Yeah, those clowns wanted a fight, they got it, and they got their military ass handed to them.

As cold as a businessman....yet they were hotheads starting a war that could end their profits not to guarantee profits for the future but because the black man deserved slavery.....dont you get thrown out at closing time ?

By the way Bill, people do stupid **** all the time. Because Lincoln successfully painted Stephen Douglas into a corner in 1858 senatorial debates in Illinois, the hotheads in the South split the Democratic ticket. John C. Breckenridge, former Vice President and Kentucky's favorite son, split the Democratic ticket, polling fewer votes than Douglas, but taking more electoral votes, and assuring the election of Lincoln. Lincoln was a minority President--he got less than half of the popular vote--but he cleaned up in the Electoral College because Breckenridge torpedoed the Democratic Party.

Let see in the first invasion by the south the North ended up with Lee complete battle plans where anyone who even had read a damn military text book could had defeated him in details.

During Gettysbury Lee was blinded because his scouting forces was off against his wishes playing game and yet he almost pull that battle off.

When he was defeated instead of ending the war by pressing him he was allowed to retreat back to Virgina.

Lee and his three corp commanders was all superior to the North military leaderships except for Grant and Grant one great ability was that he was more then willingness to used the overwhelming forces under his command at whatever the cost in union lives.

.

They did loss but they sure did not get their military ass handed to them!!!!!

I take it you mean a real threat . Which is why they seceded...they were going to lose a great deal of money....their very livelihoods were at stake, not because they thought the black man had to be a slave and they cherished the institution of slavery more than money or life itself .

A rural economy kept the industry of the North, with its manufacturing, transport and manpower at bay by being superior soldiers . I wouldn't have thought even a know-nothing revisionist like you would dispute that .

That McClellan was incompetent is not evidence that southern commanders were brilliant. That Stuart was dashing around the countryside snapping up wagon trains is clear evidence of Lee's inabilityto properly control his officers. Lee did not "almost pull that battle off." At the point at which Ewell failed to take Cemetary Hill on the first day, all further attacks were futile wastes of the lives and materials of the Army of Northern Virginia. Hood's and McLaws' attacks on the second day failed. Pickett's, Pettigrew's and Trimble's attacks on the third day failed. Nowhere did they even come close.

Certainly it was inexcusable of Meade to allow Lee to slip away after the battle. Once again, the incompetence of one commander does not constitute evidence of brilliance on the part of his enemy.

To say that Lee's corps commanders were superior to those in the Army of the Potomac is absurd. Jackson might, just might be described that way--but he was dead before June, 1863. Hancock was brilliant, and showed it at Gettysburg and in the campaigns that followed. Reynolds was damned good, but he was killed on the first day of Gettysburg. Both Gibbon and Barlow proved to be brilliant division commanders, and were no less brilliant when promoted to corps command.

Grant certainly spent all his time looking over Meade's shoulder and cracking the whip. But that was what was needed, and being willing to pay the butcher's bill was the only way to invade the South, destroy their armies and win the war. What do you propose anyone might have done other than that?

Oh yeah, they got their military ass handed to them. What do you think is going on when Lee squanders tens of thousands of lives in the Seven Days, at Cedar Mountain, at Antietam, at Gettysburg and in the Wilderness? What do you think Braxton Bragg did throughout his career? What do you think was going on when Bragg's army was overwhelmed at Missionary Ridge? What do you think was going on when Hood wasted tens of thousands of lives in the battles around Atlanta? You sure have bought the Lost Cause bullshit, hook, line and sinker.

So you find it impossible that they took precautions when they thought it will inevitably lead to war....

Dont forget what a great man you are for fighting against slavery, even though you, **** for Brains, and Gomer the Turd would make great slave owners...I see a very similar temperament to the slave owner . Cant you just see yourself on a dashing charger leading ranks of blue uniforms....brings a tear to the eye to see you in such glory .

In the Seven Days battle, Lee attacked McClellan. He had about 90,000 troops, and suffered more than 20,000 casualties. Daniel Harvey hill said of the attack at Malvern Hill: "It wasn't war, it was murder." McClellan had just over 100,000 men--he suffered fewer than 16,000 casualties. The Seven Days might be accounted a "victory" for Lee, but it was victories such as that that doomed the South.

At Gettysburg, the casualties were almost equal--although Lee suffered a few hundred more. But Meade had over 90,000 men, and Lee has 70,000. Lee's casualties were a higher proportion of his effective force.

In the "battle of Atlanta," John Bell Hood had about 50,000 men, and Sherman more than 100,000. Hood suffered more than 8,000 casualties, and Sherman fewer than 4,000. Hood burned the factories and warehouses of Atlanta, and evacuated the burning city.

In the Wilderness, Lee inflicted more than 15,000 casualties on Meade's army, while suffering somewhat more than 10,000 himself. But Meade started with more than 100,000 and all of his casualties were made good by the end of July. Lee was never able to make up his losses. And Meade pushed on south, Lee was completely unable to prevent the advance of the Army of the Potomac.

Meanwhile, Sherman wandered off on his "march to the sea," leaving Hood to do as he pleased. Hood was pleased to invade Tennessee, which he did. In December, 1864, George Thomas utterly destroyed Hood's army. Thomas had about 55,000, and Hood had only about 30,000 men left in the Army of Tennessee. Thomas suffered fewer than 4,000 casualties, while inflicting more than 6,000 casualties on Hood's army. He chased Hood's survivors for days, too. Hood's army was scattered, and would never threaten Tennessee again.

You've got an odd notion of "brilliance."