North Vs. South, Is the Civil War over?

[CelticRoz]

My mother was a southerner and I had many ancestors who fought as confederates in the War Between the States and to me the war is still being fought on both sides. I lived in the south for many years and heard their attitudes as well. However, I can think of many races and cultures who have been viciously attacked and persecuted, but one race of people in this country that I have personally studied their history for years and years, lived amongst them, traveled with them too are the Native American people. To me the Native American people have been treated the worst and are still being treated so. Just drive on all the reservations in this country as I have and you will see the poverty and the social injustice and disease. Now with the casinos on their land, I hope they are getting some money for their people and to be able to take care of their own and to rise above that poverty..............yet I still have yet to see it. I drive through the reservations all the time here where I live. I see the atrocity daily.

Sorry to get off topic. just had to get on my soap box.

[Sea Dog]

I always enjoy it when some misguided soul claims it as the War of Northern Aggression. When the South fired the first shots for a matter of pride when waiting could have accomplished the desired end and likely not started a war. Hafd they not decided to appease the fireeaters and hot heads, Sumter would have eventually surrendered and Lincoln would not have had the rallying point. Anybody that thinks that the Northern political climate would have demanded a war just over secession or freeing the slaves is sadly mistaken. Had they waited a while, the south might have been able to purchase more arms, the machinery to build arms, railroad engines and railroad rails, and received some support from the Europeans. And without Sumter inflaming the North, they might not have needed them.

The South dreamed that the Europeans would flock to their aid, and that they could expand slavery into adjacent areas. Hmm, not very smart. Slavery was more or less out of room to expand in the United States. Environmental conditions precluded plantation agriculture in almost all areas where it wasn't already established, political considerations in the rest. That left expanding into Mexican gulf coast areas, Carribean Islands, and Central and South America. England and France were invading Mexico to enforce debt collection. So hoping England and France would help them expand economically into their Mexico? Not hardly. Expand into the islands? Hmm no Navy and minimal armed forces to invade Spanish territories, where Spain already had heavier land and sea forces to enforce their colonial domination. OK Central America, again no Navy and minimal army to invade against marginal land forces supported by both the Royal Navy and US Navy enforcing the Monroe Doctrine, hmm doesn't sound too good there either, South America. ouch they just fought wars tossing out the Spaniards and the Navies again. Ergo, no expansion possible. Also although England seemed to be friendly, when push came to shove, Queen Victoria and the really powerful politicians were against slavery. Support the South tweaking the North so that English merchants could make money, well that's OK, go to war for slavery? not going to happen. And France wasn't going to go without England. (And if one really gets into the what ifs, the Royal Army was stretched pretty tight in Asia, India and Africa, especially after the Crimean War had torn it up pretty badly. Could the Brits really have projected power into the US? or would they decide the costs to do so were unacceptable? My guess is that they would have decided that it was not a feasible effort. A foray into North America could only be made if they were convinced that Spain wouldn't go after Gibralter, the Ottoman Turkish Empire wouldn't try to re-establish itself to the south into Egypt and the Persian Gulf, the Afghansstan and India remained pacified and the Chinese didn't try to regain their losses. The Brits were powerful, but not that powerful.)

But with few exceptions starting a war with inadequate industrial, economical and population bases to sustain let alone prosecute a war usually ends up with what happened to the South the got their butts kicked. The South was hamstrung in industrial capacity. Tredegar could make artillery and steam engines but not enough of either and definitely not enough at the same time. Some RR shops could perform heavy repairs, but none could cast and machine cylinders, forge main rods. None could roll rail. So unless they could capture or buy engines and rail they had what they had at the outbreak of hostilities, and that was it. Jackson captured about 20 engines and that helped but that was it. When they wore out they were gone. Major manpower issues too, with very few exceptions blacks were not trained in mechanical trades sufficient to allow them to work in machine shops or heavy metal artificing. Few were trained as rr engineers, many firemen and they could be moved up but Engineers were White Mans work, likewise telegraphers, and most skilled work. The vast majority of White women, Black men and women just weren't trained or educated and when the South started having manpower shortages, they lost a pool of labor. Plus like it or not, they had to maintain security on the plantations, the spectre of slave revolts was ever present. Again a limitation on manpower available to the armed forces. In the North, almost completely opposite, manpower was plentiful, and immigration kept it available, both to industry and the armed forces. Plus there was not the cultural bias to women, blacks and Irish working. Remember the North had a tremendous industrial engine that kept churning during the war, building ships, railroad engines, rolling rail, etc that supported not only the war effort, the building of the Pacific Railroad and continuing expansion into the northern plains.

The South was unable to successfully win any ground campaigns, their naval forces with few exceptions were inadequate to any kind of sustained or blue water bellicose taskings. Even with the interior lines, they were seldomly able to move sufficient manpower around to really stop the Union forces for long. Had the Union followed Scotts Anaconda plan with competent Generals, the war wouldn't have lasted 2 years.

They decry the Lincoln violated the Constitution without mentioning that various Southern Leaders were far more aggressive in closing newspapers even pro-southern newspapers, that the South had more political prisoners, they executed far more of their own people for treason, they also expanded the pre-war system of internal passports for blacks to all people. And this system (however heinous)was abused further to prevent the movement of reporters and merchants. And we hear the chestnut that Lincoln didn't free the slaves in the Northern States. Which is true but doesn't include the facts that he couldn't under the Constitution, that abolishing slavery, was up to the individual state legislatures. (Maryland abolished in Oct 1864, Missouri abolished in Jan 65, Delaware and Kentucky in Dec 65) Kansas had 2 slaves in 1860 and Nebraska 15. As of the 1860 Census, Slaves in the Northern states not including the Slave states that stayed in the Union, comprised .09% of the population and .14% of families owned slaves, as compared to 42% of the population and 34% of the families reporting owning slaves in the states that seceded.