The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Early Liberal Edition
|Subject: Re: Civil War||Date: 4/5/2011 1:33 AM|
|Author: 0x6a74||Number: 32127 of 68603|
Was there a strategy that would have won for the south?
not that i can thing of ... not really.
(i grew up in the West, so we didn't study it much in school ..i distinctly remember spending more time in US History on the Invasion of Normandy than the Civil War ...probably because the teacher was wounded in the hedgerows)
partly depends what you mean by 'win' and 'south' ...
best i can think of they should have delayed fighting as long as possible..
the North had overwhelming numbers and nearly all the industry ..with a delay they could maybe build up industry and alliances with Europe
so they shouldn't have fired on Sumter
they also shouldn't have taken Texas (and maybe Ark, La, & Fla) ..if they wanted to delay .. couple years ago i read Grant's autobiography and he said (and probably many in the north agreed) he felt it should have been legal for any of the original 13 to secede ,but that Texas had been won with "Union blood" ..friends of his, so it had to be kept in the Union.
but everything i've read argues war was inevitable --over slavery and/or the western territories.
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|