What do you think was the Southern States biggest mistake of the Civil War ?
Assassinating Lincoln at the end of the war rather than assassinating him before it began.
sergeant paradine's to blame
share
MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > What do you think was the Southern State...
Having no good reason to fight. Do you know how stupid it looks to have your post blacked out?
shareHaving no good reason to fight.
The South wanted to preserve slavery which provided them with cheap labour and underpinned their economy. Sounds like a "good" reason to me.
Do you know how stupid it looks to have your post blacked out?
Do you know how stupid it is to complain about something trivial and try to make an issue out of it ?
share
You are the one being trivial , blacking out your words for no good reason (duh, Lincoln was assassinated AFTER the war?)
shareSo wanting to preserve slavery you think was a good reason? And blacked-out posts doesn't make your comments any less pithy than they already are. Try to get a clue from others, Mr. Narcissist.
shareThere was no prospect, certainly immediate, of slavery being in any way abridged, at least where already established. There was no reason to start a war, because there was no injury on offer. This was the great mistake. I'm paraphrasing an earlier post.
Radicals, of any stripe, invariably talk themselves into doing stupid shit. This is a rule. What follows is that radicals also invariably sabotage the sane portion of the goals they seek to promote or impose.
I wonder to what extent the Southern concept of "honor" might have had to do with the Civil War getting started. From what I can gather it was a rather extreme code of behaviour/rules and men from the Southern "upper class" could get very offended very quickly.
Could be. There definitely was that dimension in the water. I think a study of the sociopolitcocultural evolution of 'secess fever' would be interesting to read about. I haven't. Maybe I'll look around for it.
shareHere is a pretty good summation of southern grievances :
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession
It is interesting (for me somewhat infuriating) that in a 2011 survey 48% of Americans thought the primary issue in the war was 'states rights', while only 38% thought the primary issue was slavery, the rest some combination.
Slavery was clearly the economic & social elephant in the room. That isn't to flog the south, who inherited the institution, but a sad commentary on how dishonest we are about race, our history regarding it. There is this great reflex of denial in our national DNA.
states rights is just a euphemism they use to hide the truth.
shareProbably killing Stonewall Jackson after the Battle at Chancellorsville (he was accidentally killed by his own troops). Lee never really found someone who could adequately replace him.
shareThey leaned too heavily on their cotton crop at a time when Egypt and India were producing a similar amount at the same market price and they also had far too little manufacturing. If you’re sending the boys off to war they will need saddles, cartridges and rifles, tents and so forth…the South had very few factories.
Because of the ugliness of slavery some European nations began to shut down trade with the Confederacy.
They also lacked railroads. It’s a big mess to attempt a war with no means to rapidly deliver troops and gear to the front lines.
The CSA could simply not keep up with the demands of a major war.
And not their fault at all but the major immigration ports were up North in New York City and Boston so the Union had a seemingly endless amount of well armed and supplied men to send to the fields.
The US Civil War is sometimes called ‘The Lost Cause’ and that’s an appropriate name for it. The Confederacy must have known they were in big trouble from day one.
Taking politics and what we know of history out of it those Southern boys were alleged to be true fighters, they were really valiant riders and killers…
But they lacked the technology and manpower of the north.
Over 600 thousand AMERICANS killed and countless homesteads destroyed over pride and tradition.
That war was a total waste of lives, a truly horrible mistake.
A detailed and interesting reply.
great summation.
shareThinking that an agricultural nation could beat an industrial one.
shareA very succinct and proper answer.
Much shorter and better than mine.
Rhett Butler knew what was up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S72nI4Ex_E0
He was quite plain and clear, he was spot on.
Never mind the cannons and the bullets, the Yankee naval blockade was enough to starve the Confederacy to death.
What a terrible fiasco, Americans killing Americans!
This is why I think Lincoln shouldn't have made a big deal out of it and just let the South secede and tell them they could always talk about rejoining the Union in the future. No fuss no muss.
It is one of those great ‘what if’s’ in history. Surely the CSA would have folded eventually as agriculture became more mechanized and fewer bodies were required in the fields.
It was a tragic era, maybe it was all unavoidable, the economy down South was entirely dependent on an institution propped up by cruelty and inhumanity.
It’s a damn shame the matter had to be settled with gunfire and arson, we could have talked that out maybe.
Slavery to most people now is clearly a "sin" but in those days it was big business and money talks. It was inevitable that it would end badly but the way it was handled was probably just about the worst way of doing it.
A surprising fact to me was that the first African slaves arrived in America in 1619 and the pilgrims arrived in 1620. So America's European settlement story predates the pilgrims.
Yes, I think they were called ‘indentured servants’ at the time. The first slaves in the American colonies were taken by force from a Portuguese ship by English privateers and traded off in Virginia in exchange for supplies.
I’d like a fact-based movie about how that all went down but they didn’t seem to keep solid records back then.
idk about this. if there were those willing to pay there's no reason the trade would end. slave field workers would have just became slave manufacture workers. why wouldn't they? the slave owners had every economic incentive to continue it. and without a north breathing down their backs could continue with impunity.
the only reason slavery ended elsewhere was the majority agreed and reasonable were able to impose their moral will on the pro slavers without blood shed. in the US the south completely.
I wish it could have but I think to them ending slavery would be a threat to their entire existence. it'd be like trying to convince a centrist capitalist "hey just try this communism thing it'll work out". to the south with slavery so engrained in every facet a life without slavery was unimaginable.
I’m no not sure what you are talking about. That was either brilliant trolling or a real big mess👋
share don't blame your lack of literacy and understanding on me in the future thank you
Surely the CSA would have folded eventually as agriculture became more mechanized and fewer bodies were required in the fields.
to which I responded I am not sure of this. there's no reason to believe that these slaves who worked in agricultural would not simply be forced to work in another industry.
It’s a damn shame the matter had to be settled with gunfire and arson, we could have talked that out maybe.
to which I responded that other countries had a abolitionist movement that managed to win the majorities support and impose their will democratically. Whereas while the US did have some of this, slavery was so engrained in the souths socioeconomic system (vs British slaves being workers oversees for British monopolies (like sugar cain) "talking it out" would not have worked as they would see it as a threat to their existence, not just some small institution that could be abolished share
It was poorly written.
shareFort Pillow Massacre
share