Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free

Is it correct to say that southerners R losers because they lost the civil war?


#1

Are they losers for losing the war or duffasses for fighting the war even though they had no chance at all of winning? Or are they both losers and duffasses?


#2

Q. How did the South know in 1860 that the Civil War would turn out to be the first 20th-century style “war of attrition” and not an 18th-century type of land war like previous north american wars had all been?

A. They didn’t have any idea about that when they started. And neither did the North. Nor the European nations watching from the sidelines.

Displaying self-rightous regionalist bigotry does not make a very good substitute for knowing what you’re talking about.


#3

The south should have known. The evidence was there. Some did know. Sam Houston spoke about it way back then…said the south had no chance of winning because the north had all the resources. He also said that the North would start out less committed than the south because the survival of the south as it existed was at stake (they were trying to protect their right to enslave people which was the south’s way of life) and the north didn’t have that much at stake except to preserve the union, but the union was new to them at that time and they didn’t care that much about it. But Sam Houston added that the north’s determination would increase and they would ultimately win. Sam Houston was from the south - i think he was the governor of Texas and he predicted the south losing a war of attrition. There were others voicing concern in the south and there were northerners who understood the implications of the north’s greater resources as well. The info was out there but the south’s desire to continue enslaving people, coupled with their overconfidence in their ability to win the war, led them to ignore the warnings from those amongst them saying that the south could not overcome the north’s superior resources. They had the info to know they would lose that war of attrition but they chose to ignore that truth and pressed on because they were dumb and arrogant.

» Q. How did the South know in 1860 that the Civil War would turn out to be
» the first 20th-century style “war of attrition” and not an 18th-century
» type of land war like previous north american wars had all been?
»
» A. They didn’t have any idea about that when they started. And neither
» did the North. Nor the European nations watching from the sidelines.
»
»
»
»
» Displaying self-rightous regionalist bigotry does not make a very good
» substitute for knowing what you’re talking about.


#4

Initially, the many in the north didn’t care that much about preserving the union, but many did care about that issue. My statement that the north didn’t care that much about the preservation is too simplistic and what i truly meant was that the union was new and they did want to preserve it, but that cause was not as strong as the south’s cause of fighting for its’ very survival (as it existed). Still, there were a lot of people in the North that did want to preserve the union, most notably the most powerful man in the north, Abraham Lincoln, and his wishes were the most important because he had the power to veto everyone else…he was a majority of one. But may of the soldiers fighting the war did not feel that strongly about the union, and many, if not most had little interest in fighting to free the slaves. So when i said the cause of the northerners wasn’t as strong i was really refering to the soldiers, not Lincoln. And while most in the north mistakenly thought it would be an easy and quick victory over the south, the reasons they believed that was their superior resources. So while northerners may have not considered a protracted war of attrition it’s common sense that their superior resources would prove key to a protracted war of attrition. They understood that they had the superior resources and that they could win the war on that basis, but they just didn’t consider that it would take so long. They felt the south would cower in the face of the North’s superior resources, but the south didn’t count on the south’s arrogance, stupidity, and intense desire to continue enslaving human beings on the basis of skin color.

As far as the south goes, they should have known. They saw the north’s superior resources, but they chose to ignore the truth and the implications of that. They were arrogant and stupid. Sam Houston saw the situation for what it was but nobody would listen to him. As a matter of fact they fired him from his governorship for refusing to support that foolish war. So instead of considering the voices of intelligent reasonable dissent the southern fighters chose to ignore the obvious and instead turned what should have been a skirmish into a protracted war of attrition. In fact, the south turned the Civil War into a war of attrition. They had no chance of winning but they were too stupid and arrogant to accept that truth so they kept fighting and that led to the war of attrition.

So what you are basically saying is that a southerner is too stupid and too arrogant to know the implications of his/her own behavior, and i agree with you.

» Q. How did the South know in 1860 that the Civil War would turn out to be
» the first 20th-century style “war of attrition” and not an 18th-century
» type of land war like previous north american wars had all been?
»
» A. They didn’t have any idea about that when they started. And neither
» did the North. Nor the European nations watching from the sidelines.
»
»
»
»
» Displaying self-rightous regionalist bigotry does not make a very good
» substitute for knowing what you’re talking about.


#5

when i said,

“They felt the south would cower in the face of the North’s superior resources, but the south didn’t count on the south’s arrogance, stupidity, and intense desire to continue enslaving human beings on the basis of skin color.”

i made a mistake in my wording because i said the south didn’t count on the south’s arrogance…" and I meant to say “the north didn’t count on the south’s arrogance…”

» Initially, the many in the north didn’t care that much about preserving the
» union, but many did care about that issue. My statement that the north
» didn’t care that much about the preservation is too simplistic and what i
» truly meant was that the union was new and they did want to preserve it,
» but that cause was not as strong as the south’s cause of fighting for its’
» very survival (as it existed). Still, there were a lot of people in the
» North that did want to preserve the union, most notably the most powerful
» man in the north, Abraham Lincoln, and his wishes were the most important
» because he had the power to veto everyone else…he was a majority of one.
» But may of the soldiers fighting the war did not feel that strongly about
» the union, and many, if not most had little interest in fighting to free
» the slaves. So when i said the cause of the northerners wasn’t as strong i
» was really refering to the soldiers, not Lincoln. And while most in the
» north mistakenly thought it would be an easy and quick victory over the
» south, the reasons they believed that was their superior resources. So
» while northerners may have not considered a protracted war of attrition
» it’s common sense that their superior resources would prove key to a
» protracted war of attrition. They understood that they had the superior
» resources and that they could win the war on that basis, but they just
» didn’t consider that it would take so long. They felt the south would
» cower in the face of the North’s superior resources, but the south didn’t
» count on the south’s arrogance, stupidity, and intense desire to continue
» enslaving human beings on the basis of skin color.
»
» As far as the south goes, they should have known. They saw the north’s
» superior resources, but they chose to ignore the truth and the implications
» of that. They were arrogant and stupid. Sam Houston saw the situation for
» what it was but nobody would listen to him. As a matter of fact they fired
» him from his governorship for refusing to support that foolish war. So
» instead of considering the voices of intelligent reasonable dissent the
» southern fighters chose to ignore the obvious and instead turned what
» should have been a skirmish into a protracted war of attrition. In fact,
» the south turned the Civil War into a war of attrition. They had no chance
» of winning but they were too stupid and arrogant to accept that truth so
» they kept fighting and that led to the war of attrition.
»
» So what you are basically saying is that a southerner is too stupid and
» too arrogant to know the implications of his/her own behavior, and i agree
» with you.
»
»
»
»
» » Q. How did the South know in 1860 that the Civil War would turn out to
» be
» » the first 20th-century style “war of attrition” and not an 18th-century
» » type of land war like previous north american wars had all been?
» »
» » A. They didn’t have any idea about that when they started. And
» neither
» » did the North. Nor the European nations watching from the sidelines.
» »
» »
» »
» »
» » Displaying self-rightous regionalist bigotry does not make a very good
» » substitute for knowing what you’re talking about.


#6

Just 60-some-odd years before the Civil war got going, there was another hopelessly doomed campaign against a larger foe on this continent.

Another large empire that should have easily trounced the little rebellion (which never had more than 1/3rd of the citizens in the lands in question firmly on its side in the first place) once they got pissed off and committed to actually putting it down harshly.

The rebellion was just another bunch of idealistic idiots, rebelling against an empire that they could NEVER hope to win with any true resource-oriented war.

This war was called the “American Revolution.”


#7

» Just 60-some-odd years before the Civil war got going, there was another
» hopelessly doomed campaign against a larger foe on this continent.
»
» Another large empire that should have easily trounced the little rebellion
» (which never had more than 1/3rd of the citizens in the lands in question
» firmly on its side in the first place) once they got pissed off and
» committed to actually putting it down harshly.
»
» The rebellion was just another bunch of idealistic idiots, rebelling
» against an empire that they could NEVER hope to win with any true
» resource-oriented war.
»
»
» This war was called the “American Revolution.”

Nothing like a brutal long trip across the Atlantic to weaken an army eh? Imagine that, these tired worn-out fools got all the way across the Atlantic and tried to take America away from a bunch of strong ready-to-fight zealots who knew the land and got help/support from people in the land, whereas the worn out Europeans who came here knew nothing about the land and were got some, but not much, support from the locals that were here.


#8

Don’t you mean, “These tired, worn out soldiers came across the Atlantic just like much of the other caucasian population here, but with better funding, better orgainzation, real wartime experience, a consistent group of paid men, and always had at least 1/3rd of the locals FIRMLY on their side throughout the entire war, and another 1/3rd of the locals remained neutral”?

Face it Maneless, you’ve just completely gotten owned on this one.

The American Revolution from 1775-1781 was more of a crazy-underdog-with-no-chance-in-hell situation than the American South’s civil war situation EVER was. And they won it. And it was the bedrock story of our nations’s founding, occurring inside of a single lifetime distant from the start of the civil war.


#9

“And they won it.”

With a little help from the French.
Merci beaucoup, mes amis!

:wink:


#10

» Don’t you mean, “These tired, worn out soldiers came across the Atlantic
» just like much of the other caucasian population here, but with better
» funding, better orgainzation, real wartime experience, a consistent group
» of paid men, and always had at least 1/3rd of the locals FIRMLY on their
» side throughout the entire war, and another 1/3rd of the locals remained
» neutral”?
»
»
»
» Face it Maneless, you’ve just completely gotten owned on this one.
»
» The American Revolution from 1775-1781 was more of a
» crazy-underdog-with-no-chance-in-hell situation than the American South’s
» civil war situation EVER was. And they won it. And it was the bedrock
» story of our nations’s founding, occurring inside of a single lifetime
» distant from the start of the civil war.

  1. RW compared to CW = apples and oranges. Long trip for English to enjoin the battle in America. Plus the English people were heavily taxed to fund the far-away war that meant little or nothing to the average English taxpayer. OTOH, short distance from north US to Southern US and I’m not even sure the north (which is all that matters because the north was the legitimate US) had a tax during the Civil War and if they did it wasn’t much compared to what the English were paying to fund the RW.

But it doesn’t really matter because I can’t even remember your point anymore. It doesn’t seem to have relevance to the issue i posed. Your point is something about the south had never had to fight a long protracted war before and it doesn’t seem relevant to the point I’ve raised. As a matter of fact your point sounds like a combination mixture of SOUTHERN DENIAL and SOUTHERN EXCUSISM. It sounds like something manufactured by the same people who also claim that the south fought the war to protect state’s rights, which is a bunch of denial and excusism also. The south fought the war to protect their institution of slavery.

And even as far as the south not having witnessed a war of atteition before I think it’s fair to say that your own example of the RW was kind of a war of attrition. America did win that war of attrition (ARW) but there were stark and discernable differences between the ARW and the ACW that the south didn’t take heed of. They lost a war they never had a chance of winning, and they should have realized it from the beginning. Texas Gov. Sam Houson did.


#11

Maneless, you’re on crack.

Your entire response there, for all its long-windedness, basically reads: "I’ve talked myself in circles so much that I can’t remember any of your points, and I’m too intellectually lazy and self-centered to re-read them anyway. So I’ll just respond to what I think I remember hearing, and maybe throw in some hits against points that I think people like you usually make as if you said them too . . . "

The American Revolution was at least as crazy & stupid to try to win as the Civil War, if not more so. The fact that you produced one person saying it at the time of the Civil War does not prove a damn thing. (You think nobody saw the RW for the craziness it was at the time?)

If you wanna look at history through self-serving biases (note that I didn’t say North-serving, I said SELF-serving), that’s your business.

But don’t gripe when your stupid questions get easily refuted by anyone with half an ounce of common sense and half a semester in high school history.

The majority of people who devote themselves to the study of American history (including getting formally educated in it) have much more charitable and less simplistic views about the South than you do. That’s not my doing. That’s just some decent critical thinking applied to the subject.