- This topic has 7 voices and 11 replies.
-
Posts
-
This is a relatively straightforward question: what exactly was the South's objective during the war?
This is a relatively straightforward question: what exactly was the South's objective during the war?
Depends on who you ask and when you ask. That isn't to be as cryptic as it sounds.Ask a white northerner prior to 1861 the question and then after 1863 and you would get a myriad of answers. Ask the same question to a white southerner, or a free black, or a mistreated slave, or a slave who is treated well, or a Irish immigrant, or a simple, non-slave owning farmer in the south or midwest… so many different views of the same thing.Hindsighted history and what is ALWAYS spouted is that it is was ultimately slavery. Every professor I have listened to has used the same theories over and over again and anything close to a southern viewpoint is revisionist nonsense. They have grown so accustomed to the politically correct notion of the Civil War, the relagating the southerner to nothing short of the devil, that all the other factors are mentally blocked. William Sherman thought slaves should remain slaves. Stonewall Jackson took care of his slaves as if they were family and even schooled and churched them.Again, like the other thread, it can't be looked at as black or white. There are indeed shades of gray that all encompassed the southern objective.Conversely, what was the northern objective? I again would submit it depends on who you ask and when you ask.Ultimately, today, our views are slanted by the fact we have history since then to further complicate things. For one to divorce themselves from this history and try to honestly view the deetails and feel the pain from both sides tends to ultimately see justice and injustice on both sides, but then get's labled a “NeoConfederate” and instantly shut off because the viewpoint is not the sanitized view the world has grown used to hearing.
Quite simply hold on and survive. The South never thought it could militarily defeat the North. Southerners hoped that the North would tire of the war and give up.
Quite simply hold on and survive. The South never thought it could militarily defeat the North. Southerners hoped that the North would tire of the war and give up.
Agreed, and one could also say they never intended to “defeat” the North from the beginning. The South never had “conquest” in their strategy. They indeed wanted them to tire, and then ultimately let the South be. The Union would have broken apart, but one could argue 600,000 lives could have been saved had one side let the other be. Again, right or wrong as that would have been.
Follow up – so if the South just wanted to survive, and take a defensive stand, did its military strategy reflect this? Or, to put it another way, were the moves made by the South in keeping with the idea of “holding on” or did it stray from its main objective?
Follow up – so if the South just wanted to survive, and take a defensive stand, did its military strategy reflect this? Or, to put it another way, were the moves made by the South in keeping with the idea of “holding on” or did it stray from its main objective?
The biggest detractor to this is everyone says that the South was aggressors when it fired at Ft Sumter. However, I think this was not an aggressive move but a very political and shrewd move by Lincoln to get the south to indeed fire and appear as the aggressor.Ft Sumter is in South Carolina, yet it is occupied by federal troops… so… you have something similar to a US Embassy in another country. The Embassy sits on another nations land, but since it is occupied by the US it is considered US soil. The federal government considered Ft Sumter Union land; the south considered it Confederate property and therefore property of the south.The problem also arises in that Lincoln had already called on the states to raise troops against the south, even before a shot was fired at Ft Sumter. That could also be considered aggressive. So in response the south is simply acting on the defensive to protect themselves against incursion of federal troops on their soil.The whole beginnings of the war were like chess match…Each side skillfully and shrewdly playing the other side to gain the result they wanted.
I think it is actually quite simple. The South wanted independence or at least an admission that state's rights were sacrosanct and the North wanted to preserve the Union.
quote author=Phidippides link=topic=2285.msg18483#msg18483 date=1273613375]Follow up – so if the South just wanted to survive, and take a defensive stand, did its military strategy reflect this? Or, to put it another way, were the moves made by the South in keeping with the idea of “holding on” or did it stray from its main objective?Are you alluding to Gettysburg with this question? You see we invaded the “North” to get France to intervene but that bit us in the butt because Lincoln did his emancipation proclamation which kept Europe over in well Europe. But the second time it was to get them into the Yankees into the open and pressure the north. But to answer the first question i have MANY answers. Being the hotheaded Aristocratic Southerner i am i first say it was honor. We felt as if the north were trying to break into our (private) lives and destroy our way of lives. Second to preserve our economy we saw our way of life dieing out so we decided to get out. And last but not least… y'all started it. We said we quit and get out but Lincoln would not so we pulled out our gun and pointed it at him and yelled GET OUT…again that thick headed rail splitter would not leave so finally we said to H__l with you and shot and he acted surprised.
Follow up – so if the South just wanted to survive, and take a defensive stand, did its military strategy reflect this? Or, to put it another way, were the moves made by the South in keeping with the idea of “holding on” or did it stray from its main objective?
Are you alluding to Gettysburg with this question? You see we invaded the “North” to get France to intervene but that bit us in the butt because Lincoln did his emancipation proclamation which kept Europe over in well Europe. But the second time it was to get them into the Yankees into the open and pressure the north.
I may be misreading the above. It seems to say the Emancipation Proclamation was issued following the Battle of Gettysburg. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued September 22, 1862 which granted freedom to all slaves in any of the Confederate States that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. A supplementary executive order was issued January 1, 1863, which named ten specific states where it would apply. The Battle of Gettysburg was fought July 1-3, 1863?after the Emancipation Proclamation had been issued.I agree that the Emancipation Proclamation made it impossible for England or France to intervene militarily on behalf of the South. It caused Lincoln a lot of “grief” in the North and, IMHO, was a gusty act on his part in which he risked his political future to achieve his political goals.
This is a relatively straightforward question: what exactly was the South's objective during the war?
The answer is simple, although many Southerns refuse to accept it: To preserve slavery.There had been friction (over multiple issues) between the North and South for decades, without the South succeeding from the Union. But as soon as a (moderate) abolitionist (Lincoln) was elected President the South succeeded–before he could take office. IMHO the timing makes the (primary) motive crystal clear.
The answer is simple, although many Southerns refuse to accept it: To preserve slavery.
So they would have had to do that by waging a defensive war, perhaps merely slugging it out with the North until the North said “no mas”. Or by capturing Washington D.C.?
The answer is simple, although many Southerns refuse to accept it: To preserve slavery.
So they would have had to do that by waging a defensive war, perhaps merely slugging it out with the North until the North said “no mas”. Or by capturing Washington D.C.?
The issue is really war aims. The south could have achieved what they wanted by waging a defensive war, which is by and large what they did. The North had no choice but to invade and subjugate the south if they were to achieve their war aims, which was preserve the Union. The two sides war aims were diametrically opposed and allowed no compromise. It would have been enough if the South could have avoided losing, but the North could not accept stalemate. This partly explains why the North maintained their aggressiveness throughout the war. The South tried to fight a war on the strategic defensive but could not maintain it in the face of Union attacks. The numbers were bound to eventually tell in the Unions favor and they did.
