Up With the Star: A different kind of Civil War ATL:

[Zack]

A/N: This initial post is from an ATL history book called "The Hammer and the Anvil: Grant's Hanover Campaign of 1864:

One little-known aspect of the War of the Rebellion is that the Union at one point considered putting Vice-President Butler as army commander of the Army of the James. In reality, President Lincoln, facing challenges from the Copperheads and the Radicals, decided on an unusual means to outfox them both. He chose General Benjamin Butler to be his Vice-Presidential Candidate, while picking the military governor of Tennessee, Andrew Johnson, to be his intended next Secretary of State, replacing the unpopular Seward.

In offering this plum position to Southern Unionists, and replacing Johnson with Brownlow, Lincoln is generally recognized as having in the short term strengthened Tennessee Unionism. However there is a general tendency to see the possibility of Butler as leader of the Army of the James as an if that would have won the South the War.

I personally do not see this as the case, as Grant's victories would have happened with or without that army, and certainly Sherman's campaign was moving forward all the same. All the same, there is something instructive in how Grant's Hanover Campaign disproved the assertion about the Civil War that battles did not display an operational grasp like that seen in the later wars in Europe.

Instead, the Overland Campaign fully justified faith in the victor of Vicksburg and Chattanooga, though the Confederate government proved the lesson the European armies later learned, that overwhelming victories on the battlefield do not of necessity end the existence of governments........

___________________________

So.....comments? The TL proper starts after I post a couple of chapters in my Star Wars TL I'm starting back up again.

War of rebellion? What war of rebellion? Is this sarcasm? Is this a joke? A more accurate depection would be "war for southern independence".At least you are not calling it a 'civil war'.

 

[Elfwine]

War of rebellion? What war of rebellion? Is this sarcasm? Is this a joke? A more accurate depection would be "war for southern independence".At least you are not calling it a 'civil war'.

The official (OTL as well) term for the Civil War by the government.

Apparently in this timeline, with the history books not written to support the losers, it's more common.

Could be worse. Could be the War of Southern Treason, or the War Over Slavery.

 

[Snake Featherston]

War of rebellion? What war of rebellion? Is this sarcasm? Is this a joke? A more accurate depection would be "war for southern independence".At least you are not calling it a 'civil war'.

It's the term adopted in this alternate timeline as Lee gets completely curbstomped and the Deep South is unable to hold off the full might of all the Union armies as Grant begins to move south to join Sherman. Attempts to claim it *was* such a war run aground that Lee's career is rather less romantic with this kind of abrupt ending.

Southerners, of course, *do* contest the term but the Lost Cause analogue that shows up in the ATL never really gains much steam, as Hanover Junction and the 41st shred any and all pretense that there was anyone responsible for the defeat of the CSA in Virginia save Lee. Thus, ironically, A.S. Johnston and Braxton Bragg fill in together jointly where Lee did IOTL in that ATL's Lost Cause.

The official (OTL as well) term for the Civil War by the government.

And in this ATL the main term for the Civil War. While Civil War comes into vogue a century or so later, the original terms used to refer to it are "War of the Rebellion" as the rapid unraveling of the Confederacy following the capture of all Virginia and the creation of Franklin makes a Lost Cause legend much harder to create and sustain. They do not call it the War of Southern Treason, due to how the Reconstruction of that ATL works, but the Lost Cause is pretty much a refuge for a minority of the Southern right.

The greater degree of Northern victory, moreover, means that the North *does* write the history books in this timeline. However, there is *a* Lost Cause analogue that eventually does show up.

 

[Zack]

The official (OTL as well) term for the Civil War by the government.

Apparently in this timeline, with the history books not written to support the losers, it's more common.

Could be worse. Could be the War of Southern Treason, or the War Over Slavery.

war between parties, factions, or inhabitants of different regions within the same nation

Thats the official quote. The war was not a civil war nor never will be a civil war. I dont care how the union tries to rewrite history.

Thats who won. Thats who wrote the history books not the other way around.

Could be worse for the union as well "War of northern aggression" or "War of northern conquest"

 

[Snake Featherston]

Thats the official quote. The war was not a civil war nor never will be a civil war. I dont care how the union tries to rewrite history.

Thats who won. Thats who wrote the history books not the other way around.

Could be worse for the union as well "War of northern aggression" or "War of northern conquest"

Bullshit, it always was a civil war. The Confederacy had no true popular legitimacy, even in South Carolina. The highest ranking Confederate officer was Northern-born, and Generals Gorgas and Pemberton were also key Northern-born officers. While the Union general-in-chief in 1861 was Southern-born, the greatest US Admiral of the war was Southern-born, and one of the four great Union generals was a Virginian.

It was not "just" a sectional war. Too, no matter how Confederate apologists in turn try to rewrite history there were always Southerners who recognized their country was the whole Union, not a republic of, by, and for the sons of the slaveholding class.

The war was begun by the South, they invaded the North twice in pursuit of the decisive battle. It was also not a war of Northern conquest, were it thus to start with, Secretary Seddon and Forrest would have been hung with Wirz on the gallows.

 

[Zack]

Southerners, of course, *do* contest the term but the Lost Cause analogue that shows up in the ATL never really gains much steam, as Hanover Junction and the 41st shred any and all pretense that there was anyone responsible for the defeat of the CSA in Virginia save Lee. Thus, ironically, A.S. Johnston and Braxton Bragg fill in together jointly where Lee did IOTL in that ATL's Lost Cause.

I contest the term because aits a lie. Im a mid westerner although i have been to the south many times and have family there. Its a liecand you know its a lie. Civil wars are typically factions fighting over the control over a single government. That was never what the CSA wanted. The CSA wanted its independence.



And in this ATL the main term for the Civil War. While Civil War comes into vogue a century or so later, the original terms used to refer to it are "War of the Rebellion" as the rapid unraveling of the Confederacy following the capture of all Virginia and the creation of Franklin makes a Lost Cause legend much harder to create and sustain. They do not call it the War of Southern Treason, due to how the Reconstruction of that ATL works, but the Lost Cause is pretty much a refuge for a minority of the Southern right.

The greater degree of Northern victory, moreover, means that the North *does* write the history books in this timeline. However, there is *a* Lost Cause analogue that eventually does show up.

Its not a 'legend' it is a fact. No matter how you try to paint it or what rose-tinted glass's you look through. Many things Abraham lincoln did was illegal and outright war crimes. If he did what he did today he would be tried for war crimes by the UN. He was a tyrant and he got what he deserved. Sic Semper tyrannus indeed.

It is not a refuge for a minority of the 'southern right'. It is a 'refuge' for anyone who wants to study the civil war outside the public education version of history and the war.

Furthermore you two speak as if history has been written in the souths favor. What the bloody hell are you two talking about? I have been taught my entire life that the southern cause of the war was nothing but bigotry and racism and taught that slavery was the ONLY cause. Nothing was ever taught about the econimic side of the war or any other part. I was taught basically "the south fought for slavery,the csa was bad,we won,secession is bad,etc"

This is a entirely slanted view of the war. Slanted in the unions favor.

Let me ask you this..whats the difference from the 'revolutionary war' and the war between the states? Morality? I expect you will spout off some drivel about 'slavery' utterly ignoring the founding fathers were slave owners and did nothing to end its as a institution no matter how they detested it.

Slavery existed as a institution of the united states until the war between the states. What makes the CSA cause so detestable compared to the colonists against the british empire? The american revolution was caused by a tea tax(among other things most notably the stamp act).I find the cause of secession on the southern side much more important then a trivial tea tax.

But like i said before you will PROBABLY spit off some drivel about how the cause of the founding fathers was much more noble,something about freedom(poor black slaves utterly ignored in the constitution...bet you wont call that out),how its not equivalent,etc.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Part VII: The new plan:

Grant, in his capacity as General-in-Chief has now begun to plan a new sequence of offensives, also set all around the line for July. In North Carolina, against Confederate forces under command of General Cooper, with his subordinates Generals Beauregard and Bragg, Grant intends to send the larger Army of the James, now encompassing Hunter's old army under command of Brevet Brigadier General Emory Upton, and Burnside's Ninth Corps, both under overall command of General Hunter. General Sigel leads the new Army of the Shenandoah.

Meade, in command of the Army of the Potomac forms the left wing of this offensive force, the Armies of the James and Shenandoah the right. In Georgia, Sherman commands still the Armies of the Cumberland, Tennessee, and Ohio. However with his re-inforced and re-drawn Confederate armies, Johnston commands not 60,000 effectives but 75,000 effectives, enough that Sherman continues his maneuver campaign, expecting that Grant's plan to pocket Johnston will succeed.

The Confederates, meanwhile, due to the increasing desertions and spread of both Unionist and anti-draft sentiment adopt an increasingly harsher and more repressive system of confiscation and the draft, which increases their total numbers of troops, but against Sherman's 100,000 and Grant's 200,000 in the Armies of the Potomac, Shenandoah, and James the feeling is one of merely hoping to halt the Union juggernaut.

The Confederate strategy adopted, particularly in the Carolinas, is to trade space for time, in order to attack isolated Union detachments. In Georgia, Johnston intends to use his larger army to bait Sherman near Resaca, hoping to use the Carolinas and Georgia as shields to blunt the Union armies.

Grant, by contrast, having six armies to send against the Confederate soldiers, and a vast preponderance, intends to use them to confuse and outmaneuver the Confederates. Cooper's Army of the Carolinas he intends to defeat in a sweeping maneuver campaign, while he intends then to push in a march through the Carolinas, living off the countryside, in order to link with Sherman in Georgia.

Sherman, for his part, intends to continue maneuvering tactics, in tune with Grant's vision of keeping the Confederates from re-inforcing their armies. With the coming of July the Northern public awaits the balloon going up.....

 

[Snake Featherston]

Its not a 'legend' it is a fact. No matter how you try to paint it or what rose-tinted glass's you look through. Many things Abraham lincoln did was illegal and outright war crimes. If he did what he did today he would be tried for war crimes by the UN. He was a tyrant and he got what he deserved. Sic Semper tyrannus indeed.

Then what were Fort Pillow, the Nueces Massacre, the Kingston Hangings? If suspending Habeas Corpus was dictatorial, what about what Davis did in East Tennessee and Richmond? What about the Confederate first resort to whiffs of grapeshot? What about Davis's policy of summary execution for USCT officers and enslavement of enlisted men? The only Union war crime was the order by General Ewing to expel the inhabitants of several counties.

It is not a refuge for a minority of the 'southern right'. It is a 'refuge' for anyone who wants to study the civil war outside the public education version of history and the war.

By which you mean the viewpoint which takes the Confederates at their word that their society was one whose cornerstone was "the great moral truth that the black man is inferior to the white man, that slavery is his natural and ordained station?".

Furthermore you two speak as if history has been written in the souths favor. What the bloody hell are you two talking about? I have been taught my entire life that the southern cause of the war was nothing but bigotry and racism and taught that slavery was the ONLY cause. Nothing was ever taught about the econimic side of the war or any other part. I was taught basically "the south fought for slavery,the csa was bad,we won,secession is bad,etc"

You were taught the actual facts. Secession *was* bad. There were no fair referenda on the matter. There was no case where the Northern government did half of what the Confederate one did as a matter of course. *I* was taught that Northern armies were barbarian hordes akin to the fascists in WWII.

This is a entirely slanted view of the war. Slanted in the unions favor.

Of course it is. I am a Southerner like the Calcasieu Jayhawkers, General George Thomas, and Admiral Farragut. Not like the cowardly and treacherous Planter class that started the war but screamed tyranny if asked to do even a little to *fight* it.

Let me ask you this..whats the difference from the 'revolutionary war' and the war between the states? Morality? I expect you will spout off some drivel about 'slavery' utterly ignoring the founding fathers were slave owners and did nothing to end its as a institution no matter how they detested it.

That half the states in the 1780s were willing to abolish slavery and recruit blacks from the first to win their war, while the South was unable to take even the bare minimum of sacrifices required to win its. Too, the Confederate government was mostly an inefficient and stupid evil that frankly deserved to lose. It fucked up a defensive war over a region the size of the European part of the old Soviet Union. That in itself makes them stupid enough that the loss was well-deserved.

Slavery existed as a institution of the united states until the war between the states. What makes the CSA cause so detestable compared to the colonists against the british empire? The american revolution was caused by a tea tax(among other things most notably the stamp act).I find the cause of secession on the southern side much more important then a trivial tea tax.

Yes, the fire-eaters certainly considered defending their liberty to buy and sell other human beings a more laudable cause than that of the Founders. The Confederate Vice-President even said that Thomas Jefferson was wrong.

But like i said before you will PROBABLY spit off some drivel about how the cause of the founding fathers was much more noble,something about freedom(poor black slaves utterly ignored in the constitution...bet you wont call that out),how its not equivalent,etc.

The cause of the Founders was ultimately justified because they won. The South could not hack a defensive war across a region the size of European Russia even with guerrilla warfare and enough advantages at the time that victory was more likely than not. The war was the Confederacy's to lose, and by God it did so so embarrassingly that Lost Causers are more annoying than the innumerable Axis-Wankers. At least there is *some* basis for the idea that the Axis could win.

I contest the term because aits a lie. Im a mid westerner although i have been to the south many times and have family there. Its a liecand you know its a lie. Civil wars are typically factions fighting over the control over a single government. That was never what the CSA wanted. The CSA wanted its independence.

It wanted it, just not bad enough to suffer Habeas Corpus suspended in the havens of States-Righters like Stephens, Brown, Vance, and Wigfall. Nor did the Confederacy want to actually try guerrilla warfare after the fact, bar the remnants of Quantrill's horde of savage murderers. Nor did the Confederacy ever remotely pause to consider whether or not it was *wise* to keep attacking the much bigger, more populous, more wealthy Federal armies and what that would do in the long term. The CSA was not even willing to raise armies of slaves to keep the Yankees out of Richmond in the last days of the Petersburg Siege. The Confederates weren't merely evil, they were Stupid Evil, the worst of all kinds.

 

[Zack]

[Bullshit, it always was a civil war. The Confederacy had no true popular legitimacy, even in South Carolina. The highest ranking Confederate officer was Northern-born, and Generals Gorgas and Pemberton were also key Northern-born officers. While the Union general-in-chief in 1861 was Southern-born, the greatest US Admiral of the war was Southern-born, and one of the four great Union generals was a Virginian

Not it was not a civil war. A civil war is fought between two people in the same country TYPICALLY over control of the government itself.You can also tell that to the 300,000 confederate soldiers and their families that fought for the confederacy and its survival. Popular 'legitimacy' my ass. I dont give two craps who was born where. The fact that those 'northern born' fought for the south and its cause should tell you something about the north and ITS cause.

Furthermore your attempt to some how illegitimize the CSA because of its 'northern born' speaks of your geographical bigotry. You think all southerners are inbred too? I would not be surprised with the attitude you have.

It was not "just" a sectional war. Too, no matter how Confederate apologists in turn try to rewrite history there were always Southerners who recognized their country was the whole Union, not a republic of, by, and for the sons of the slaveholding class

.

Yes and there was always northerners who sympathized with the southern cause and thought like many at the time(many still do)that secession was legal and that the federal government was not a all powerful monster and that states had rights and that the 10th ammendment was more then a piece of paper for a ass to be wiped with.

The war was begun by the South, they invaded the North twice in pursuit of the decisive battle. It was also not a war of Northern conquest, were it thus to start with, Secretary Seddon and Forrest would have been hung with Wirz on the gallows

The war began because the south was provoked by the much loved tyrant Abraham Lincoln. Im assuming you know what im talking about,but just in case im going to explain it to you.

Lincoln coerced the South to fire the first shots when, against the initial advice of most of his cabinet, he dispatched ships carrying troops and munitions to resupply Fort Sumter, site of the customs house at Charleston. Charleston militia took the bait and bombarded the fort on April 12, 1861. After those first shots were fired the pro-Union press branded Southern secession an "armed rebellion" and called for Lincoln to suppress it.

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Congress was adjourned at the time and for the next three months, ignoring his constitutional duty to call this legislative branch of government back in session during a time of emergency, Lincoln assumed dictatorial powers and did things, like raise an army, that only Congress is supposed to do. He shut down newspapers that disagreed with his war policy, more than 300 of them. He ordered his military officers to lock up political opponents, thousands of them. Although the exact number is not known, Lincoln may well have arrested and imprisoned more than 20,000 political opponents, southern sympathizers, and people suspected of being disloyal to the Union, creating what one researcher has termed a 19th century "American gulag," a forerunner of the 20th century’s political prison and labor camps in the former Soviet Union. Lincoln denied these nonviolent dissenters their right of free speech and suspended the privilege of Habeas Corpus, something only Congress in a time of war has the power to do. Lincoln’s soldiers arrested civilians, often arbitrarily, without any charges being filed; and, if held at all, military commissions conducted trials. He permitted Union troops to arrest the Mayor of Baltimore (then the third largest city in the Union), its Chief of Police and a Maryland congressman, along with 31 state legislators. When Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote an opinion that said these actions were unlawful and violated the Constitution, Lincoln ignored the ruling. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Lincoln called up an army of 75,000 men to invade the seven southern states that had seceded and force them back into the Union. By unilaterally recruiting troops to invade these states, without first calling Congress into session to consider the matter and give its consent, Lincoln made an error in judgment that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. At the time, only seven states had seceded. But when Lincoln announced his intention to bring these states back into the Union by force, four additional states – Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas – seceded and joined the Confederacy.[/FONT]​

 

[Snake Featherston]

Not it was not a civil war. A civil war is fought between tow people in the same country TYPICALLY over control of the government itself.You can also tell that to the 300,000 confederate soldiers and their families that fought for the confederacy and its survival. Popular 'legitimacy' my ass. I dont give two craps who was born where. The fact that those 'northern born' fought for the south and its cause should tell you something about the north and ITS cause.

And what of Thomas and Farragut? What does their decision to fight for the North and their dramatically outshining Pemberton and Cooper's effectiveness for the Confederacy tell you about why the Union won and the Confederacy was destroyed? The Confederates had a total of 800,000 soldiers, not 300,000. And most of the time their armies were wasted in senseless attacks by generals who were cronies of a prickly old man with malaria.

Furthermore your attempt to some how illegitimize the CSA because of its northern born' speaks of your geographical bigotry. You think all southerners are inbred too?I would not be surprised with the attitude you have.

Sonny, I had ancestors who served on both sides, so if we're going to play this game I have more Confederate "cred" than you. I'm just able to recognize the Confederacy for what it actually was: an incompetent rebellion trying vainly to fight for an atavism and doing a crappy job of it.

Yes and their was always northerners who sympathized with the southern cause and thought like many at the time(many still do)that secession was legal and that the federal government was not a all powerful monster and that state had rights.

There were equally many Southerners who felt that the Republic founded by their Founding Fathers was too dear to chance to the incompetence and avarice of the Confederate government.

The war began the south was provoked by the much loved tyrant Abraham Lincoln. Im assuming you know what im talking about,but just in case im going to explain it to you.

Star of the West.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Part VIII: July 1-15 1864:

The next phase of the war resumed when contrary to General Johnston's explicit orders, General Hood's division launched a strong attack at Adairsville against General Thomas's Army of the Tennessee. The Confederate attack met with a strong and ruthless repulse, Thomas's victory aided by the unwillingness of some of the conscript formations to press attacks when more willing troops would have.

Fresh on the heels of the news of the disaster at Adairsville comes news from North Carolina: Bragg's First Corps attempted to engage the Army of the Potomac under General Meade near Hillsboro. This first engagement, over two days was a Confederate tactical victory on the first, in typical Bragg fashion reported as a tactical victory. Yet in truth Sedgwick's Corps had not been defeated entirely to the degree Bragg expected, and upon the arrival of the Army of the James on Bragg's right flank he was forced to retreat southward.

A Confederate attack in the east, under General Beauregard attempted to hit the Army of the Shenandoah in a surprise attack, but met with harsh resistance from Sigel's emboldened army, and this was compounded by a surprise flank attack from one of Sigel's regiments, which sent the Confederates further south in flight.

The North Carolina governor, faced with the encroaching avalanche of Northern military might, issued calls for strong popular uprisings against the Union armies.

Yet as the Union army forced the Confederates out of Adairsville in Georgia, news came of another disaster for the Confederacy: in a cavalry battle near Dalton, Sheridan's troopers had surprised and outfought General Nathan Bedford Forrest, who had been fatally injured by a minie ball to the jaw. The attack had seen Forrest, with 3,000 tired cavalry on exhausted, overworked mounts attack Sheridan's 6,000 fresh troops on healthy mounts. Despite the odds against him, Forrest nearly pulled off the victory there until the fatal shot by the Spencer Carbine. This battle, too, becomes a favorite of future counterfactual histories.

There was one bright spot: the Confederate Army under Bragg had recouped its forces near Durham Station and had gained a tactical stalemate against the arrival of Army of the James forces under Burnside. The hearts of pro-Confederates were not gladdened by the reality that this "bright spot" would have been considered in 1862 a disaster.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Part IX: July 15-19 1864.

Yet on the heels of the "triumph" at Durham Station, the Confederates achieved somewhat more of a success, also in North Carolina. Jubal Early's troops managed a surprise flank attack against the overconfident Army of the Shenandoah near Shenandoah. Due to poor positioning of Sigel's troops and neglect of basic surveillance of enemy activity, this battle forced Union offensive activity in North Carolina to halt temporarily. However it had done this at the price of removing by the 17th Jubal Early's division from battle for the duration of the war.

The result of Goldsboro, however, was merely that Grant began to ensure a much tighter reign on the separate Union armies from the East. Too, the Union casualties, while provoking some outcry, were lessened in effect by the result that the Union drive into North Carolina was proceeding steadily and the casualties, instead of resulting in stalemate were actually pushing Confederates ever further south.

Northerners in the great cities of the North had become used to the sounds of victory salutes. One action that Grant, however, did take after Goldsboro was to relieve Sigel and replace him with General James Birney. Thus by 15 July as Grant's armies were pushing deeper into North Carolina, Sherman's armies in turn confronted the newly-established Confederate Army of Georgia under General Cleburne. Due to its newly-established nature and the lack of co-operation among his subordinate officers, Cleburne was forced to retreat from his intended maneuver campaign toward Resaca.

His mood was not helped by the reality that the Union force which saw off this poorly-organized and supplied attack was all USCT under command of a Union general restored to battlefield command for the first time since 1862.....General Fremont....... In the postwar Southern histories, it would be maintained that Cleburne would have won Second Resaca had his generals co-operated. Yet later historians would point out that Fremont, despite his relative lack of experience commanded a large, fresh army against tired, exhausted veterans on a long march and could easily have defeated the attack had it been made.

Yet in the event, at Second Resaca the War of the Rebellion indeed had the Battle that Wasn't.

______________________________

Next updates will deal further with the national and international implications of this rather different 1864 campaign. I might note that General Stuart will live past the end of the war ITTL due to having been captured at Hanover Station.......

Not to mention that as these entries show, the Union generals are still making mistakes, as are Confederate generals. Of course at this phase these battles are hurting the Confederacy regardless of whether they are won or lost much worse than they hurt the Union.......though also as per OTL the Union ends up with a lot more of the Confederacy to garrison, which is going to narrow over time the large Union armies on the offensive as much as the battles do. With of course the reality that the Confederate generals are still overly aggressive and pursuing the kind of tactics that are very much losing ones, especially since Grant is planning something new to take advantage of these casualties......

 

[Zack]

Then what were Fort Pillow, the Nueces Massacre, the Kingston Hangings? If suspending Habeas Corpus was dictatorial, what about what Davis did in East Tennessee and Richmond? What about the Confederate first resort to whiffs of grapeshot? What about Davis's policy of summary execution for USCT officers and enslavement of enlisted men? The only Union war crime was the order by General Ewing to expel the inhabitants of several counties.

Want me to bring up union war crimes? Want me to bring up the union gulags? Do i need to bring up sherman and the march to the sea? St. Louis Massacre?The Federal decree that forced twenty thousand Missouri civilians into exile?

Women and children, black and white, were robbed, brutalized, and left homeless in Sherman's infamous raid through Georgia. Torture and rape were not uncommon. In South Carolina, homes, farms, churches, and whole towns disappeared in flames. Civilians received no mercy at the hands of the Union invaders. Earrings were ripped from bleeding ears, graves were robbed, and towns were pillaged. Wherever Federal troops encountered Southern Blacks, whether free or slave, they were robbed, brutalized, belittled, kidnapped, threatened, tortured, and sometimes raped or killed by their blue-clad "liberators."

By which you mean the viewpoint which takes the Confederates at their word that their society was one whose cornerstone was "the great moral truth that the black man is inferior to the white man, that slavery is his natural and ordained station?".

Ah typical tactic. You go for morality huh. So what about this nice little quote from the tyrant?

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything"

Just as racist as the one you quoted from. Dont kid yourself. Everyone was racist back then.

You were taught the actual facts. Secession *was* bad. There were no fair referenda on the matter. There was no case where the Northern government did half of what the Confederate one did as a matter of course. *I* was taught that Northern armies were barbarian hordes akin to the fascists in WWII.

Yes,yes,yes. Go suck on the federal governemnts all powerful teat. We have a right to secede.

"If there be any among us who would wish to disolve this union..let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerate where reason is left free to combat it"-Thomas jefferson

"If any state in the union will declare that it prefers seperation with the first alternative,to a continuance in union without it,I have no hesitation in saying 'let us seperate'.-Thomas jefferson

"A Union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction.The use of force against a state,would look more like a declaration of war,than an infliction of punishment,and would probably be considered by the part attacked as a dissolution by which it might be bound-James maddison on an ammenment to allow the centeral government to invade a break away state

Of course it is. I am a Southerner like the Calcasieu Jayhawkers, General George Thomas, and Admiral Farragut. Not like the cowardly and treacherous Planter class that started the war but screamed tyranny if asked to do even a little to *fight* it

What a coincidence. Im as 'southern' as the bushwhackers and General Lee.

That half the states in the 1780s were willing to abolish slavery and recruit blacks from the first to win their war, while the South was unable to take even the bare minimum of sacrifices required to win its. Too, the Confederate government was mostly an inefficient and stupid evil that frankly deserved to lose. It fucked up a defensive war over a region the size of the European part of the old Soviet Union. That in itself makes them stupid enough that the loss was well-deserved

Yes if you totally ignore military tactics back then. They would have been bled dry by northern manpower and industry. If it was a war of attrition the southern generals knew they would lose...which was the whole reason for the way the course of the war went. They wanted to knock the union out of the war early or at least win enough battles for european intervention.

Yes, the fire-eaters certainly considered defending their liberty to buy and sell other human beings a more laudable cause than that of the Founders. The Confederate Vice-President even said that Thomas Jefferson was wrong.

They considered it their right and they had the right to consider it so. You look at things through your modern rose-tinted glass's. Slavery as a institution has been around since the dawn of time and will always be around. Its around today and will be long after we are gone.The founders rebelled because of a tea tax and stamp tax. Kibbels and bits compared to the southern cause.

The cause of the Founders was ultimately justified because they won. The South could not hack a defensive war across a region the size of European Russia even with guerrilla warfare and enough advantages at the time that victory was more likely than not. The war was the Confederacy's to lose, and by God it did so so embarrassingly that Lost Causers are more annoying than the innumerable Axis-Wankers. At least there is *some* basis for the idea that the Axis could win.

So might makes right with you then? It would have been right if the CSA won? I wonder if me and you were british because the founders lost the war would you still have this attitude"oh those lousy evil colonists!"

It wanted it, just not bad enough to suffer Habeas Corpus suspended in the havens of States-Righters like Stephens, Brown, Vance, and Wigfall. Nor did the Confederacy want to actually try guerrilla warfare after the fact, bar the remnants of Quantrill's horde of savage murderers. Nor did the Confederacy ever remotely pause to consider whether or not it was *wise* to keep attacking the much bigger, more populous, more wealthy Federal armies and what that would do in the long term. The CSA was not even willing to raise armies of slaves to keep the Yankees out of Richmond in the last days of the Petersburg Siege. The Confederates weren't merely evil, they were Stupid Evil, the worst of all kinds.

Yes if all else fails paint them evil. You cant argue against their cause so you call them evil and stupid. I have met many southerners and none are like you. Im going to go ahead and guess politically you are left on the spectrum. It will all make sense if thats the case. The love of the centralized government and all.

But thanks for pointing this out. They held off and i quote "much bigger, more populous, more wealthy Federal armies" for four long years and actually was winning for half the war.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Want me to bring up union war crimes? Want me to bring up the union gulags?

As the Gulag was a gigantic slave labor camp, you'll have to point to more than POW camps to show the Union had the infrastructure for those things, let alone using them.

Do i need to bring up sherman and the march to the sea?

Somehow people always forget about the Shenandoah Valley Campaigns, Wilson's Raid, and the Carolinas Campaigns. In any case by the standards of the 20th Century World Wars Sherman's army was a bunch of choir boys.

St. Louis Massacre?The Federal decree that forced twenty thousand Missouri civilians into exile?

The only Union war crime was the order by General Ewing to expel the inhabitants of several counties.

Women and children, black and white, were robbed, brutalized, and left homeless in Sherman's infamous raid through Georgia. Torture and rape were not uncommon. In South Carolina, homes, farms, churches, and whole towns disappeared in flames. Civilians received no mercy at the hands of the Union invaders. Earrings were ripped from bleeding ears, graves were robbed, and towns were pillaged. Wherever Federal troops encountered Southern Blacks, whether free or slave, they were robbed, brutalized, belittled, kidnapped, threatened, tortured, and sometimes raped or killed by their blue-clad "liberators."

Ah typical tactic. You go for morality huh. So what about this nice little quote from the tyrant?

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything"

Just as racist as the one you quoted from. Dont kid yourself. Everyone was racist back then.

If we go down this route "It is hoped by this action that we will show that Negro troops cannot cope with Southerners."

Yes,yes,yes. Go suck on the federal governemnts all powerful teat. We have a right to secede.

No you do not.

"If there be any among us who would wish to disolve this union..let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerate where reason is left free to combat it"-Thomas jefferson

"If any state in the union will declare that it prefers seperation with the first alternative,to a continuance in union without it,I have no hesitation in saying 'let us seperate'.-Thomas jefferson

And then he went right on to expand the Union three-fold. Just like Mme. Rosenbaum and her sucking the government's teat while bleating about the virtues of selfish jackassery.

"A Union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction.The use of force against a state,would look more like a declaration of war,than an infliction of punishment,and would probably be considered by the part attacked as a dissolution by which it might be bound-James maddison on an ammenment to allow the centeral government to invade a break away state

How surprising that Andrew Jackson, born in that era, did not see things that way and preferred to preserve the Federal Union.

What a coincidence. Im as 'southern' as the bushwhackers and General Lee.

Murderous thugs and a man who butchered more troops than any other general on either side? Charming heroes you have there.

Yes the fact that the south was able to hold off a much larger enemy with much more industry and manpower for 4 years while winning for half the war says a lot.

It says nothing at all. Hannibal's armies were much weaker than the Roman legions they destroyed time after time. Ho Chih Minh's army defeated the USA despite losing every battle it fought against it. The Confederacy did not hold out for four years, either. It was effectively dead once it failed at Shiloh, nearly dead at Vicksburg, and militarily speaking, truly most sincerely dead after Chattanooga. For that matter, the CSA did not hold back the North in the West. At all. The West is an unbroken string of Union victories bar the one exception at Chickamauga and even there the CSA couldn't hack a battle that seemed damned impossible to lose. I have no sympathy for Davis's gang of bums and charlatans who failed a war that seemed on its surface unwinnable....for the Union.

Yes if you totally ignore military tactics back then. They would have been bled dry by northern manpower and industry. If it was a war of attrition the southern generals knew they would lose...which was the whole reason for the way the course of the war went. They wanted to knock the union out of the war early or at least win enough battles for european intervention.

The Battles of Fredericksburg and Antietam disprove the thesis that superior numbers alone won the North the war. Attrition of that kind would actually have won the South the war. Northerners were not any different from people today.

They considered it their right and they had the right to consider it so. You look at things through your modern rose-tinted glass's. Slavery as a institution has been around since the dawn of time and will always be around. Its around today and will be long after we are gone.The founders rebelled because of a tea tax and stamp tax. Kibbels and bits compared to the southern cause.

I know full well the North was as racist as the South. This is going to play a major part in the aftermath of the war and in the ATL's postwar politics. But thanks for playing.

So might makes right with you then? It would have been right if the CSA won? I wonder if me and you were british because the founders lost the war would you still have this attitude"oh those lousy evil colonists!"

Actually I would say "those idiot damn fool colonists" given that their performance on the battlefield IRL was nothing to boast about.

Yes if all else fails paint them evil. You cant argue against their cause so you call them evil and stupid. I have met many southerners and none are like you. Im going to go ahead and guess politically you are left on the spectrum. It will all make sense if thats the case. The love of the centralized government and all.

But thanks for pointing this out. They held off and i quote "much bigger, more populous, more wealthy Federal armies" for four long years and actually was winning for half the war.

Actually I'm far too ornery and able to think to have an ideology. I *do* think that it makes more sense to back workers as opposed to capital, and oppose the death penalty and wish the USA to stay a secular culture. That doesn't make me a Leftist.

No, they did not. The Union bitchslapped them across the West. That's how they in fact did win the 1864-5 campaign so simply.

 

[Elfwine]

Yes the fact that the south was able to hold off a much larger enemy with much more industry and manpower for 4 years while winning for half the war says a lot.

About how what happened in Virginia has blinded people to what was happening through out the rest of the Confederacy.

I'm just going to ask. How much have you read about the western theater? Do you really think the Army of Tennessee was "holding off" the Union?

Snake:
"Yet as the Union army forced the Confederates out of Adairsville in Georgia, news came of another disaster for the Confederacy: in a cavalry battle near Dalton, Sheridan's troopers had surprised and outfought General Nathan Bedford Forrest, who had been fatally injured by a minie ball to the jaw. "

I'm not sure which bothers me more here, the idea of Forrest winning (which didn't happen) or Sheridan (which did).

Sheridan was not a very good cavalry commander.

On the other hand, Forrest is overrated.

I'm not sure if bringing this up will change anything, and I'm not seriously proposing it does, but I'd like your thoughts on why this would work out that way.

 

[Snake Featherston]

I'm not sure which bothers me more here, the idea of Forrest winning (which didn't happen) or Sheridan (which did).

Sheridan was not a very good cavalry commander.

On the other hand, Forrest is overrated.

I should note that in this particular case, Forrest's attack was an attempt to bank on Refuge In Audacity and attack Sheridan's much larger forces that had arrived near Dalton, in preparation to rejoin the other Union armies further south. Forrest faced an officer who like Grant with Lee wasn't afraid of his own shadow, and like with his last battles in 1865 got a whupping for it.

I might note that in the actual battle itself, while I didn't go into much detail, in my outlines Forrest is close to winning for most of the battle, and in fact the tide isn't turned until a Spencer Carbine hits him in the jaw and he is thus mortally injured. Kind of a Western Yellow Tavern (where Stuart actually ends up surviving and Forrest dead ITTL).

Forrest was attacking with 3,000 tired troopers a force of 6,000 Union troopers fresh from victories further north and a railroad trip. Edited the timeline to reflect this.

 

[Elfwine]

I should note that in this particular case, Forrest's attack was an attempt to bank on Refuge In Audacity and attack Sheridan's much larger forces that had arrived near Dalton, in preparation to rejoin the other Union armies further south. Forrest faced an officer who like Grant with Lee wasn't afraid of his own shadow, and like with his last battles in 1865 got a whupping for it.

I might note that in the actual battle itself, while I didn't go into much detail, in my outlines Forrest is close to winning for most of the battle, and in fact the tide isn't turned until a Spencer Carbine hits him in the jaw and he is thus mortally injured. Kind of a Western Yellow Tavern (where Stuart actually ends up surviving and Forrest dead ITTL).

Forrest was attacking with 3,000 tired troopers a force of 6,000 Union troopers fresh from victories further north and a railroad trip. Edited the timeline to reflect this.

Ah, that makes sense. Nicely thought out.

Seems like Jackson is the only Confederate Ubermensch the Lost Cause types can still elevate to absurd levels.



Just imagining a timeline where the standard account of Grant is of a commander bold and inspired is such a wonderfully uplifting thought. (hence the emoticon)

 

[Zack]

And what of Thomas and Farragut? What does their decision to fight for the North and their dramatically outshining Pemberton and Cooper's effectiveness for the Confederacy tell you about why the Union won and the Confederacy was destroyed? The Confederates had a total of 800,000 soldiers, not 300,000. And most of the time their armies were wasted in senseless attacks by generals who were cronies of a prickly old man with malaria.

Hold on..first you started by trying to illegitimize the CSA by saying most of its officers were 'northern born'. Now you are trying to illegitimize the CSA by comparing its officers?So we started on one thing but are now jumping to another? Desperate much? Pathetic much?

Sonny, I had ancestors who served on both sides, so if we're going to play this game I have more Confederate "cred" than you. I'm just able to recognize the Confederacy for what it actually was: an incompetent rebellion trying vainly to fight for an atavism and doing a crappy job of it.

Good that you dishonor your confederate ancestor and what he fought for. Im sure he did not fight for slavery or slave owners. He fought for his country and what he percieved it to be. Not what modern history teaches it was. He loved it and fought for it and wanted it to be free no matter its faults....at least thats what MY ancestor fought for.

There were equally many Southerners who felt that the Republic founded by their Founding Fathers was too dear to chance to the incompetence and avarice of the Confederate government.

WTF are you talking about? The republic was not threatened. The confederate constitution was about the same as the USA version yet only allowed slavery. It also had many improvements added to it IMHO. All they wanted was independence.

Their was also many northerners that thought that the republic that which the founding fathers founded was hypocriticle and that the federal government was over stepping its bounds.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Ah, that makes sense. Nicely thought out.

Seems like Jackson is the only Confederate Ubermensch the Lost Cause types can still elevate to absurd levels.

And it's actually akin to what happened with the Battle of Winchester: Early attacked Sheridan when logic dictated he shouldn't and he got curbstomped. Forrest, who's still defeated Sturgis under much greater odds expects Sheridan to be much worse than he actually is as a tactician, and finds out that Sheridan actually *is* a battlefield commander.

Too late for the Confederacy, of course......

Just imagining a timeline where the standard account of Grant is of a commander bold and inspired is such a wonderfully uplifting thought. (hence the emoticon)

Well, if you look at it, the ATL's history of him would go right from the decisive Donelson, Shiloh, and Vicksburg victories to the Hanover and North Carolina Campaigns. He's pretty much a shoe-in for a future shot as POTUS, as even the South is forced to see that they were drubbed on the battlefield, not by superior numbers, but superior *use* of numbers.

Hold on..first you started by trying to illegitimize the CSA by saying most of its officers were 'northern born'. Now you are trying to illegitimize the CSA by comparing its officers?So we started on one thing but are now jumping to another? Desperate much? Pathetic much?

You troll worse than people I've had this argument with on LJ, BTW. I'm simply pointing out that Pemberton made severe mistakes that helped Grant win Vicksburg big-time. Where Thomas won Mill Springs, and Nashville. Two battles that showed that Southern officers when under Northern arms were much more effective at Napoleonic battles than Lee was. Nashville was what Lee wanted Second Bull Run to be.

Good that you dishonor your confederate ancestor and what he fought for. Im sure he did not fight for slavery or slave owners. He fought for his country and what he percieved it to be. Not what modern history teaches it was. He loved it and fought for it.

I'm fairly sure he did, given that he did not desert from not wanting to fight a "rich man's war and a poor man's fight."

WTF are you talking about? The republic was not threatened. The confederate constitution was about the same as the USA version yet only allowed slavery. It also had many improvements added to it IMHO. All they wanted was independence.

Their was also many northerners that thought that the republic that which the founding fathers founded was hypocriticle and that the federal government was over stepping its bounds.

Yes, it was. If the CSA wins, there's at least one more war before the USA crushes it for good. That war would have consequences that made OTL Reconstruction look wonderful.

Yes, Vallandigham and his talk of "Lincoln's amalgamation" and his love of "bandy-heeled big-lipped niggers that are going to marry your daughters" and his political rallies of women with signs saying "Fathers, save us from Nigger husbands." Yeah, they were absolutely caring about the Republic.

 

[Elfwine]

And it's actually akin to what happened with the Battle of Winchester: Early attacked Sheridan when logic dictated he shouldn't and he got curbstomped. Forrest, who's still defeated Sturgis under much greater odds expects Sheridan to be much worse than he actually is as a tactician, and finds out that Sheridan actually *is* a battlefield commander.

Too late for the Confederacy, of course......

Their loss.

Well, if you look at it, the ATL's history of him would go right from the decisive Donelson, Shiloh, and Vicksburg victories to the Hanover and North Carolina Campaigns. He's pretty much a shoe-in for a future shot as POTUS, as even the South is forced to see that they were drubbed on the battlefield, not by superior numbers, but superior *use* of numbers.

Exactly. What he deserves OTL, but without the crap people throw up to obscure it.

Also, I'm kind of afraid to ask what your typoing fingers were thinking in quoting Zack with my name.