- This topic has 10 voices and 20 replies.
-
Posts
-
By the time Gettysburg came around the South pretty much had exhausted any chance of victory. And the biggest problem was not the south's cause, lack of resources or leadership (they had the majority of the Army's best military leaders). It all came down to how they fought and perceived the conflict. The south believed and fought what they considered a “gentlemans war”. Any look into wars of any perido will always show that that mode of thought would not bring victory. William Sherman ensured that the South would lose by making war horrible, ugly, and as ungentlemanly as possible – to beat the south into total submission. His “total war” tactics showed that war was not, as he plainly stated, a “popularity contest”. War was war and the uglier it was the sooner it would be over.Any person who looks at military battles will see that the victors normally went in and did their job. Up until the years of the “yellow press” during the Spanish American War, the public had no idea of how wars were fought unless they fought. They were blissfully unaware and the soldiers went in and “took care of the business at hand”. Right or wrong, if they went in and as Sherman did, made it ugly, it ended with victory. This has changed, today more so than ever. The south had no chance of victory, regardless of whether their cause was right or wrong. They were unprepared to fight a total war, even with stellar leadership.
Welcome aboard Notch! Your comments are mostly true, but the South altered their tactics too. Lee understood that the war was becoming a war of attrition so he listened to Longstreet and began to fight defensively with the goal of forcing the Union to “waste” as many soldiers as possible overcoming defensive trench works such as at Petersburg, and fighting in confined spaces such as the Wilderness Campaign, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor. The problem with Lee's strategy is that by this time, the Union was committed to winning the war no matter the cost, and had a general in Grant who was willing to absorb the gore whereas his predecessors didn't have the stomach for it (Hooker, Halleck, Pope, Meade, MacCllellan, McDowell). The South made the war dirty and ugly where they could such as John Hunt Morgan's raids into Indiana and Ohio. The fact was, they couldn't threaten Northern territory significantly enough to make that much a difference. Still, had Clement Vallandingham defeated Lincoln in 1864, the war would surely have ended.
I think the problem is that by the time they altered tactics, their forces were already dwindled to the point where even Stonewall Jackson couldn't have help if had still been living. You had many deserting to go back home to take care of their families, some of which were victims of Sherman's march, some were fed up up with the war (obviously this was on both sides but the fact that the south had a significantly smaller resource pool magnified this), and the guerilla tactics of Mogan, Mosby and Forrest, while effective, where too little too late. Lee was in charge and had a more chivalrous view towards combat. Had he taken a position more that of Stonewall Jackson (take the bayonet to them) and Forrest (show no quarter) I believe events would have changed. You would have more than likely seen Europe get involved and THAT would have changed everything, especially since the leadership of the Union up until Grant was incompetent. With Grant in charge, and having let loose the likes of Sherman and Sheridan, and Lee without Jackson and still clinging to his chivalrous belief, the South had no chance.Thanks for the welcome BTW. ;D
Actually the same thing was happening to the Union by 1864. Europe was never going to get involved in any big way. It really didn't matter to them who won.
It would have been ineveitable for the south. They had not the man power nor the resources. Their only hope was that the citezens of the north would clamor so hard for peace that Lincoln would have been forced to make peace with Richmond
That nearly happened. Clement Vallandingham nearly defeated Lincoln's re-election bid in 1864. Had Vallandingham won, he would have sued for peace with the Confederacy.
Need it be said that Vallandingham was a Democrat?
a victory at Gettysburg might have brought England in on the side of the South…At the time of Gettysburg they were sitting on the fence.
I must respectfully disagree. Following the Emancipation Proclamation it was impossible for England or France to enter the war on the side of the South. It was a gutsy move by Lincoln. One the one hand it made it impossible for Europe to militarily assist the South, but it was extremely unpopular with many in the North and made being re-nominated more difficult.
