If the confederates win at Antietam do they win the war?

[Witt]

You from NC then?

[Witt]

Thanks for your honesty. Presumed your name was thus sourced. Your knowledge of history is vast. I know you are right about Thomas. It is Richie Rich who was the opportunist who died old and in his bed. Horrid obsequious man. Thomas  really was principled and lived in most dangerous times. Henry VIII  is not someone I admire. I suppose You know he blew all the money his mean old father generated as monarch.
I comically play on my catholic roots by talking of burning my friends asheretics(protestants), so cannot, in character,  pretend to admire truely great men like he and Cramner. My wife is from Oxford and she showed me the spot he was burnt.
Religion gives us so much of our colourful history.

[Witt]

Hey Cromwell. Do not know if you have seen these two eulogies of Pender.

The loss of Major-General Pender is severely felt by the army and the country. He served with this army from the beginning of the war, and took a distinguished part in all its engagements. Wounded on several on occasions, he never left his command in action until he received the injury that resulted in his death. His promise and usefulness as an officer were only equaled by the purity and excellence of his private life.[4]

— Robert E. Lee

[CWO Marc]

@Cromwell_Dude:

So, who must we blame? I say Jefferson Davis. But, to his defense, why should boys from Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi go and die in Virginia when their own countries were occupied by a foreign country’s army? Davis wanted to defend too much with too little. But, understand the Confederate mindset. They created a new union, a desire to be left alone. […] To defend the South though, it was against its nature to prepare for War. It desired small, limited and constitutional government. Preparing for war undermines constitutional principals and feeds the Warfare State.

One of the Confederacy’s problems was that it was caught in a kind of logical paradox.  Because the South had so much fewer men, so much less industry and so much fewer natural resources than the North (a situation made worse by the Union blockade), it was imperative for it to use its military and economic assets as efficiently as possible.  That would have required highly centralized government – a principle which ran counter to the Confederacy’s core belief in strong states’ rights.  Jefferson Davis did, I think, take steps to expand his Presidential powers in view of the wartime emergency, but as I recall he ran into a lot of opposition.

[Guest]

Thanks to Abraham Lincoln, the greatest of all Americans, the Confederacy was destined to fail, and the world is a better place because of it.

[Witt]

I really think routing The Army Of The Potomac was out of the question by day 3, probably on day 2 as well, despite the valiant efforts of the attackers brushing aside double their number of defenders.(Day 2 makes great reading.) Their commander was not Hooker and they were on their own soil this time. At Chickamauga a division gap had been left for the attackers to rush in to. That was not going to happen here. By day 3 Lee did not have the troops to wreck and cause a rout. The brigades that made it far enough ended up receiving enfilade fire from the revenge seeking I and XI corps.
Leadership was lacking partly because of communication involved in the execution of the desired echelon attack, but more so because of the casualties incurred until now. I am sure there were men in some of the non Pickett brigades who thought they had already done their bit. This left far too men to break and then,importantly, exploit that break.
Artillery ammo seems to have been an issue too.

[Col. Ty Webb]

@Cromwell_Dude:

@Col.:

@Cromwell_Dude:

I do believe the South would have won the War had it gained a victory at Antietam. With that said, I don’t know how serious the South was to attacking Washington prior to 1864. Without a push to Washington, I don’t see the South winning the war. To defend the South, it was being invaded by a foreign power. An aggressive campaign against Washington was against the very nature why the South formed in 1861. It wished to be left alone, not puruse an offensive war.

So, yes, winning the war with a push to Washington after an Antietam victory. However, in 1862, such push violated the very nature of the Southern Confederacy.

To the alpha males, Monday night quarterbacks, and sincere historians who will tell me about Jubal Early’s march on Washington in 1864, I say this-What was Jubal Early going to do to Washington with his meager force? How was Jubal Early going to breach the defenses of Washington in 1864? How was Jubal Early going to escape capture short of a supposed rescue by the rest of the ANV?

And, please no one tell me Maryland was a northern state. One, it’s beneath the Mason Dixon. Two, it was a slave state. Three, Lincoln imprisoned thousands of people and suspended the legislature at the beginning of the war to ensure Maryland’s obedience.

Sincere historians feel free to disagree. Alpha males and rude people stay away.

Maryland was a border state. It was neither North or South, but it never declared independence from the Union.
There were slaves in Maryland, and the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to Maryland, allowing slavery in the state even after it was put into order. To say it was a Southern state is saying that the capital of the US was in the Confederacy.

The Mason-Dixon line is an easy grade school way of dividing the North and the South, but it’s a little more complicated than that. It’s not like the 38th Parallel.

I also gotta ask, why do you feel the need to end a lot of your posts with stuff like “Sincere historians feel free to disagree. Alpha males and rude people stay away?”

“And, please no one tell me Maryland was a northern state.” That statement sounds rather rude and like one an alpha male might make. The whole paragraph before that too. You just know better than anyone else and can’t be convinced otherwise?

Not trying to start anything, but I’m just curious as to why you feel the need to write that as often as you do. Most people on here are pretty civil about things.

They are civil with me now because I assertively make that premise. I got tired of making nice, conversational posts to get certain responses. You can’t complain if you don’t assertively make yourself clear, right? Well, now I’m clear. If you don’t like it, don’t respond. I don’t always agree with Hobbes and Bunnies. Have you ever seen this exchange between us? For example, your rebuttal to one of my responses was to call it “grade school?” Have I ever used such language in my disagreements with people like Hobbes or Bunnies? Or how about wittman? I was civil. I was polite. I was kind. I put that premise in there for people like you. My response is grade school? Why don’t you respond to me with statistics and your interpretations of those statistics rather than ‘you are grade school.’ Notice the semi-quotes, not direct quotes.

Look at my conversations with Mallery29 over the Batman movies. We were nice and cordial. Though we disagreed a little, we were both respectful of one another. It’s ok to disagree a little and still have fun.

Here’s another example. Hobbes is right about the statistics with a G1 attack. However, over half the time, I do not destroy the German battleship. Did I call him grade school? Did I say he was lost in math books? His statistics are right. We just choose to disagree on certain aspects of the attack. I could easily have said: “Well, Hobbes, you need to get your head out of the book and face reality. I know the rolls. I lose often. Get real.” I chose not to. It’s rude, wrong, and not in my thoughts. Hobbes has always treated me with respect and kindness. I disagreed with a Bunnies post one time. Did you hear me say ‘that’s grade school?’ More examples as to my why, but I’m stopping here. You can respond, but don’t get mad if you’re just ignored.

UPDATE: Wittman and I disagree about a very polarizing figure called Oliver Cromwell. I greatly enjoy reading what Wittman writes. Is there a flame war between us? No, it’s okay to be civil and disagree. However, not all are civil, and I don’t have to tolerate it.

They were civil before you even made that comment. There wasn’t one uncivil comment on the board before your post. You asking others to be civil when they already were was the first uncivil act on this post.

I find it funny that you actually ask people not to answer back while throwing an underhand insult at them and calling them alpha males or insincere historians (are their actually any to you?). I guess you think it’s okay to slap someone as long as you do it with a white satin glove.

Where do you get the idea that everyone on this entire board argued before you started placing instructions not to argue with you? Do you do it so you’ll have a way out by calling them an alpha male. Like I said there are thousands of civil conversations on these forums that don’t include a preface about civil conversations.

I’ve tended to notice when you don’t talk down to people like you have, they don’t respond in the way you think they will.

I’m also sorry you didn’t understand the literal translation of grade school in my post. I meant they taught us in grade school as a way to remember what was north and what was south?
Just like “I” before “E” except after “C”.
All I was saying was it’s too simple an explanation, but that really bothered you because I was trying to knock you off as alpha male?

Not everyone is out to insult you, and I’m not sure why you think they would want to, but you seem awful defensive.

Look at a lot of other posts where not involved and you won’t find fighting. You’re not the one preventing it.

[Col. Ty Webb]

@Cromwell_Dude:

@Col.:

@Cromwell_Dude:

I do believe the South would have won the War had it gained a victory at Antietam. With that said, I don’t know how serious the South was to attacking Washington prior to 1864. Without a push to Washington, I don’t see the South winning the war. To defend the South, it was being invaded by a foreign power. An aggressive campaign against Washington was against the very nature why the South formed in 1861. It wished to be left alone, not puruse an offensive war.

So, yes, winning the war with a push to Washington after an Antietam victory. However, in 1862, such push violated the very nature of the Southern Confederacy.

To the alpha males, Monday night quarterbacks, and sincere historians who will tell me about Jubal Early’s march on Washington in 1864, I say this-What was Jubal Early going to do to Washington with his meager force? How was Jubal Early going to breach the defenses of Washington in 1864? How was Jubal Early going to escape capture short of a supposed rescue by the rest of the ANV?

And, please no one tell me Maryland was a northern state. One, it’s beneath the Mason Dixon. Two, it was a slave state. Three, Lincoln imprisoned thousands of people and suspended the legislature at the beginning of the war to ensure Maryland’s obedience.

Sincere historians feel free to disagree. Alpha males and rude people stay away.

Maryland was a border state. It was neither North or South, but it never declared independence from the Union.
There were slaves in Maryland, and the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to Maryland, allowing slavery in the state even after it was put into order. To say it was a Southern state is saying that the capital of the US was in the Confederacy.

The Mason-Dixon line is an easy grade school way of dividing the North and the South, but it’s a little more complicated than that. It’s not like the 38th Parallel.

I also gotta ask, why do you feel the need to end a lot of your posts with stuff like “Sincere historians feel free to disagree. Alpha males and rude people stay away?”

“And, please no one tell me Maryland was a northern state.” That statement sounds rather rude and like one an alpha male might make. The whole paragraph before that too. You just know better than anyone else and can’t be convinced otherwise?

Not trying to start anything, but I’m just curious as to why you feel the need to write that as often as you do. Most people on here are pretty civil about things.

Seriously? It was a slave state. And, why do you ignore Lincoln using the army to prevent the state from seceding? You don’t think arresting people by the tens of thousands and declaration of martial law had any thing to do with the states not seceding? Who is grade school now? If you need an authoritative historian (since, I’m not one to you), go read William Freehling’s ‘Road to Disunion.’ Over 90% of the time they voted in block with the South. Is that too grade school? My geographic answer was not good enough. Hopefully, my political statistic will suffice. If you disagree with the statistics, take it up with Freehling. Over 90% of Blacks in America vote Democrat. Are they border voters or block voters? Are they on the fence (border) about to vote Republican? No. Neither were Kentucky and Maryland. They were consistently relaible to vote the Southern Block. What else qualifies as ‘South’ since my geographic answer was grade school? Besides, Lincoln in 1861 viewed them as South. It was in these states that he ordered the arrest of tens of thousands and shut down legislatures. Honest Abe wouldn’t lie would he?

To my defense, I purposely made it sound grade school for two reasons. It was my attempt to be humble. Secondly, I wrote it like that for my audience. The average American reads on an 8th grade level. I can write like Kurt if you want. That’s a compliment to you Kurt. But, we all see what happened to him, right?

Who asked you to write like Kurt? What does he have to do with any of this?
And boy did that grade school comment bother you. � I’m sorry it if it emasculated you, but it was for my audience. The average “sincere historian” is a self centered jackass who thinks he’s cordial by calling everyone not him, or in his select group, alpha males.

I don’t know how that comment about you using a grade school memory technique was so hurtful. I still sing the alphabet song to myself when I use the dictionary, and for some reason I don’t find it insulting. Only an alpha male would.

And what in the heck does the 90% of blacks voting democrat have to do with Maryland? Maryland has voted Democrat in 7 of the last 9 elections, and by landslides.

And please show me where he arrested 10s of thousands of people in Maryland. I’ve lived in Maryland my whole life and have never heard about him arresting tens of 1,000s of people from this state. He didn’t even arrest the entire legislature.

As I said, Maryland was a border state and wanted to be left alone. Yes, some in the state had slaves. I never called it a North state. It was a border state.
The Legislature had voted (Twice!) not to secede from the Union before Lincoln did anything. I guess that doesn’t count in your opinion? How is that following 90% of the South’s ways?
In 1860, Baltimore (the fourth largest city in the country)had 25,000 free blacks and 2,500 slaves. � Does that sound like a slave state?

You can’t look at Maryland as a state regarding the civil war, you have to look at it as a couple different regions. I know that’s not the simple answer you’re apparently looking for, but that’s the truth.

Why does the South need to be defined in black and white for you? And why is your opinion the only correct option? Maybe it is something grade school with you. Maybe you need things explained to you and there can’t be any gray area. There has to be only one possible answer for every situation for you? Yeah, man. That’s kind of sounds like a kid in grade school if you ask me.

[Guest]

@Cromwell_Dude:

@ExtraBilly:

Thanks to Abraham Lincoln, the greatest of all Americans, the Confederacy was destined to fail, and the world is a better place because of it.

As a genuine act friendship here, why do you say so? I won’t respond to your post. I just love sincere, friendly conversation. In a true act of friendship, why do say the above statements? It’s ok to disagree. I want every one’s views to be welcomed. You won’t find me in a flame war with you. I welcome dissenting views. I regret not saying these thoughts in the first response. It’s always good to count to 100 before responding. Some of these posts could be volatile. I must lead by example. It’s ok to be civil and disagree. Receive this post with an open hand on my part.

I would be much more interested in hearing why you “could not disagree more,” but I will indulge you. Lincoln saved the Union and ended slavery. What else needs to be said? Personally I am not a fan of enslaving fellow human beings and have enjoyed living in the United States.

[Guest]

Concerning the war its pretty simple. The North had two overwhelming advantages: more people and more industry. As long as the North had the will to fight, which President Lincoln provided, the outcome was guaranteed. The South’s only hope lay in a major technological advancement which would have tipped the balance on the battlefield. Once again the primarily agrarian South was lacking in this department.

[Witt]

Hi ExtraBilly. I think we discussed the possibility of a war weary North and, therefore, a failed reelection if the South had been able to hold the West together longer. I believe the West was badly neglected to the detriment of the South’s cause. I can see why: both capitals were in the East and only 100 miles apart, but it was a great and costly error. The soldiers of the West were every  bit as good as those in the East, only poorly led.  The administration realised too late that 1 man(Grant)was tearing their country in pieces and gobbling up territory that could not be retaken.

[Guest]

@wittman:

Hi ExtraBilly. I think we discussed the possibility of a war weary North and, therefore, a failed reelection if the South had been able to hold the West together longer. I believe the West was badly neglected to the detriment of the South’s cause. I can see why: both capitals were in the East and only 100 miles apart, but it was a great and costly error. The soldiers of the West were every  bit as good as those in the East, only poorly led.  The administration realised too late that 1 man(Grant)was tearing their country in pieces and gobbling up territory that could not be retaken.

Yeah all of the people who believe in the “glorious south” have their theories.

[Mallery29]

It was a war by attrition….Antietam would have had to been at least 2:1 ratio for the South to even gain an advantage.  The demolition of the forces on both side were great, but the South was not as well trained (but more aggressive during this time period), so in order to balance it out, I would think that’s a good guesstimation on what damage they would have had to do.  As mentioned before, leadership outside Lee was not as effective at fighting the Union.  And war weary north?  What does it say about the south when 2 states in the Confederacy have elections for 1864 and vote Lincoln? (votes didn’t count). 
I could see France possibly joining to help the south, but the 1850s/60s for England was of great intellectual movement forward, and I don’t know if England would be able to handle its own revolt if they sided with the South…But if France joined, that would have weakened their position against England and the Prussians, which probably would have led to an earlier demise of Napoleon III, and greatly affect European events. 
Finally, the industry factor was too much for the south to overcome…without great success in clearing the blockades, money for ships from outside contractors would have dried up and not have been able to keep up with the North’s ability to produce.

If the south and the Union had come to terms, the South would face Post WWI Germany situations with inflation and supplies, and as noted by our first several years of existence, a Confederate government DOES NOT work…it borders on lawlessness.

[Witt]

Hi Mallery. When I said a war weary North I meant there would have been less fervour from some of the electorate if things had not gone as well in the West.if the South had realised the importance of it and allocated better resources and a better Army of Tennessee commander,
then it is possible Lincoln may not have won relection.
As for Louisiana and Tennessee voting as it did, I think the fact those states were under occupation and any or all its Southern leaning voters were under arms or trying to avoid attracting the enemy’s attention, may have helped the result. I am not sure but could a Southerner have voted how he wanted anyway? Did they have representation? Am interested to know, but cannot find any evidence of figures.