Yahoo: Proposed Mississippi license plate would honor Confederate general, early Klan leader

[skinfan133]

Maybe. Or maybe it would have just made the war longer.

wait, what? I was being a little sarcastic by saying they should kill Lincoln. But seriously, Lee and Jeff Davis thought that capturing DC and imposing their will on the US government would completely delegitimatize the principles they were fighting for. The only reason the Army of Northern Virginia did not do just that is because they thought they were taking the moral high ground by fighting a war of attrition. That is precisely why it took so long for the Sharpsburg and Gettysburg campaigns to happen and why an invasion of the District of Columbia never took place from 1861-63. Although D.C. was ultimately the goal of the Gettysburg campaign, and despite the fact that after Gettysburg the South was incapable of invading D.C., Lee could have forced the will of the Confederate government at literal sword-point through an invasion on a number of occasions, but didn't because of chivalry, purity of cause, and so forth.

But had the South invaded D.C. in 1861 or 1862 they could have totally ended the war altogether. It's unlikely that the war would have been prolonged if the South captured D.C.

[Predicto]

wait, what? I was being a little sarcastic by saying they should kill Lincoln. But seriously, Lee and Jeff Davis thought that capturing DC and imposing their will on the US government would completely delegitimatize the principles they were fighting for. The only reason the Army of Northern Virginia did not do just that is because they thought they were taking the moral high ground by fighting a war of attrition. That is precisely why it took so long for the Sharpsburg and Gettysburg campaigns to happen and why an invasion of the District of Columbia never took place from 1861-63. Although D.C. was ultimately the goal of the Gettysburg campaign, and despite the fact that after Gettysburg the South was incapable of invading D.C., Lee could have forced the will of the Confederate government at literal sword-point through an invasion on a number of occasions, but didn't because of chivalry, purity of cause, and so forth.

But had the South invaded D.C. in 1861 or 1862 they could have totally ended the war altogether. It's unlikely that the war would have been prolonged if the South captured D.C.

I have no idea why you assume that. In 1862, DC was the seat of government, but it was also a relative backwater. It had 61 thousand people and virtually no outlying areas of industrial or military significance. All of the Northern industry and population centers were far away. New York was 20 times larger. The government isn't the handful of buildings that the Congress and President sit in, it is the actual people.

I guess you can assume that the North would fold its cards if DC was raided, but I don't know why that is a reasonable assumption. Our country didn't fold when the British overran DC in 1812. The government just left. :whoknows:

I think your assumptions may be clouded by your romanticization of the Southern leaders, but we've discussed that before.

[RansomthePasserby]

I guess you can assume that the North would fold its cards if DC was raided, but I don't know why that is a reasonable assumption. Our country didn't fold when the British overran DC in 1812. The government just left. :whoknows:

I think your assumptions may be clouded by your romanticization of the Southern leaders, but we've discussed that before.

Which I think is the real reason why the South didn't invade DC. They knew they had very little to gain by it, and most likely would have just angered those who were still sitting on the fence. The government (and most likely the majority of the population) would have just left for Philadelphia, and the war would have continued.

No matter how you draw it up, I really don't see the South winning in the end. The North had way too much man power and capital.

[Henry]

Which I think is the real reason why the South didn't invade DC. They knew they had very little to gain by it, and most likely would have just angered those who were still sitting on the fence. The government (and most likely the majority of the population) would have just left for Philadelphia, and the war would have continued.

No matter how you draw it up, I really don't see the South winning in the end. The North had way too much man power and capital.

And believe it or not, the Confederacy really couldn't have just waltzed up and taken DC. McClellan was a terrible choice for invading the south, but he was excellent at building his army and keeping them in a position to defend Washington. The big reason he didn't move on Richmond like Lincoln wanted him to was because he was afraid of Beauregard, Johnston or Lee (whomever was in charge at the time) crippling his army and then moving on DC. Mac was overly cautious, always assuming he was wildly outnumbered when the complete opposite was the case, so he always moved with a defensive contingency in mind. One only has to look at the Peninsula Campaign to see how impossible it was for Lee to cripple McCellan's army even while Mac was on the retreat. What's most important is that Davis and his generals knew this, and while they used the north's fears of their supposedly larger armies moving north to keep the federals at bay, they couldn't actually effectively invade. Anteitam and Gettysburg proved that.

I know people love to romanticize the southern leadership but I don't think they could have done more than they did. Not being outnumbered the way they always were.

[Prosperity]

Even if the South could have successfully invaded DC through some demonic miracle, all that means is that the North would have Shermanized more of the South than they did. All in all, the South got off pretty easy, at least compared to what could have happened.

[Henry]

Virginia v. West Virginia, read up on it. SCOTUS radically departed from Lincoln's view on secession.

I think Texas v. White was a little clearer on the subject.

We can pick and choose SCOTUS rulings that favor our opinion, but the constitutionality of secession was not a cut-and-dried issue.

[joe]

Once more, Arkansas and Alabama are sighing to themselves "Thank God for Mississippi."

Sad, but true.

[SnyderShrugged]

, but the constitutionality of secession was not a cut-and-dried issue.

Then why are you treating it as one?

[nonniey]

I think Texas v. White was a little clearer on the subject.

....... the constitutionality of secession was not a cut-and-dried issue.

Maybe not in 1860 but it became a cut-and-dried issue in 1865.

[Henry]

Then why are you treating it as one?

Please explain.

Er ... that's your interpretation. Mine is that the states had no clear right to secede, and therefore their attempt to do so could be considered treasonous. Had they won independence through force of arms, as the founding fathers did, it would have been a moot point.

[Madison Redskin]

Wow, that's a pretty strong statement coming from you

Although I am slightly left of center, I am not a partisan hack. I still have my principles and, although the left adores FDR, I have serious problems with a lot of things he did during his presidency.

[zoony]

All in all, the South got off pretty easy, at least compared to what could have happened.[/QUOTe]

Wow.

[Predicto]

Originally Posted by Prosperity

All in all, the South got off pretty easy, at least compared to what could have happened.

Wow.

I agree with him. :whoknows:

[Dan T.]

I agree with him. :whoknows:

And Lincoln has to get some credit for that, by setting a magnanimous tone in his second inaugural address - "with malice toward none and charity for all" . . ."to bind up the nation's wounds."

and for allowing generous terms for repatriation of Rebel soldiers.

[RansomthePasserby]

Even if the South could have successfully invaded DC through some demonic miracle, all that means is that the North would have Shermanized more of the South than they did. All in all, the South got off pretty easy, at least compared to what could have happened.

If the Civil War was fought over again and I were in charge of the North, I definitely would be more aggressive earlier on going after the South's resources. As Henry noted, the early Union commanders were way too cautious for their own good... I really think their timidity is largely responsible for the prolonged length of the war. Had they been more decisive, much of the bloodshed later on could have been avoided.

Wow.

Why wow? It's just true.

[joe]

If the Civil War was fought over again and I were in charge of the North, I definitely would be more aggressive earlier on going after the South's resources. As Henry noted, the early Union commanders were way too cautious for their own good... I really think their timidity is largely responsible for the prolonged length of the war. Had they been more decisive, much of the bloodshed later on could have been avoided.

Actually, the north was too aggressive early in the war. The result was first Manassas (or first Bull Run depending on your point of view). It was only after Mclellan took control and trained the Army of the Potomac to the point where they could actually compete, that they could have been more aggressive and won earlier. The problem was that, as has been said previously here, McLellan was not an aggressive commander and missed his chance at Antietam, despite having the Rebel battle plans. McLellan was a good fit to train the army, but not to comand it in combat (or perhaps as some have speculated, he really wanted a stalemate so he could take the presidency from Lincoln). In any event, early aggressivness on the part of the north almost led to disaster.

[twa]

. All in all, the South got off pretty easy, at least compared to what could have happened.

I agree.....but Lincoln knew the costs of being overly punitive would be continued insurrection which is very costly and bad for business.

Lincoln was very practical and had no wish to face guerrilla warfare,nor the effects of excesses on the territories.

Much better to be remembered as freeing the slaves and tolerant

[RansomthePasserby]

Actually, the north was too aggressive early in the war. The result was first Manassas (or first Bull Run depending on your point of view). It was only after Mclellan took control and trained the Army of the Potomac to the point where they could actually compete, that they could have been more aggressive and won earlier. The problem was that, as has been said previously here, McLellan was not an aggressive commander and missed his chance at Antietam, despite having the Rebel battle plans. McLellan was a good fit to train the army, but not to comand it in combat (or perhaps as some have speculated, he really wanted a stalemate so he could take the presidency from Lincoln). In any event, early aggressivness on the part of the north almost led to disaster.

True. Although, I don't know if I'd attribute the Union loss at First Manassas/Bull Run to aggressiveness so much as inexperience mixed with overconfidence. The Southern Generals (especially Jackson) completely out maneuvered and surprised an incompetent General Pope, who believed he had the Confederates trapped, when in fact, he had overlooked the majority of the Southern forces.

From what I understand, it was more of a tactical blunder than a strategic one.

http://www.historyanimated.com/ManassasTwoAnimation.html

[zoony]

I agree with him. :whoknows:

I think LA and California got off seriously easy after the Rodney King riots. Would have been much more deserving had the whole cesspool of corruption and racism (aka California) been burned completely to the ground. **** 'em, they had it coming.

.....

[twa]

It's not too late Zoony

[Predicto]

I think LA and California got off seriously easy after the Rodney King riots. Would have been much more deserving had the whole cesspool of corruption and racism (aka California) been burned completely to the ground. **** 'em, they had it coming.

.....

Thanks Forrest.

[Prosperity]

I agree.....but Lincoln knew the costs of being overly punitive would be continued insurrection which is very costly and bad for business.

Lincoln was very practical and had no wish to face guerrilla warfare,nor the effects of excesses on the territories.

Much better to be remembered as freeing the slaves and tolerant

much better not to get shot...

though you're definitely right

I think LA and California got off seriously easy after the Rodney King riots. Would have been much more deserving had the whole cesspool of corruption and racism (aka California) been burned completely to the ground. **** 'em, they had it coming.

.....

Why u mad tho?

I didn't say the South was ****ty, I said that if the South invaded DC, Sherman's march would have been minor in comparison to what the North would have done in the end.

And yeah, LA and CA did get off pretty easy, pretty nice place all around I'd say (well maybe not LA)

[Henry]

I agree.....but Lincoln knew the costs of being overly punitive would be continued insurrection which is very costly and bad for business.

Lincoln was very practical and had no wish to face guerrilla warfare,nor the effects of excesses on the territories.

Much better to be remembered as freeing the slaves and tolerant

Probably why confederate leaders weren't found guilty of treason.

[twa]

Probably why confederate leaders weren't found guilty of treason.

The winners do write the rules...and the history

[RansomthePasserby]

The winners do write the rules...and the history

C'mon. The South has had their say and then some in Civil War history. Especially in the "romanticizing Confederate leaders" department.