Why Did The South Ignore Its Northern Flank

[williamlayton]

I keep looking at the history and wondering if there was really anyone in charge.
If they were in charge, they were out of the office a lot.
We all talk about Lee--and for very good reason---he was a great general. It seems that the South forgot about the West and North.
Did anyone ever call attention to the fact that wars were not static and an army could exploit these weaknesses?
I will admit that the North seemed to wallow in this blindness for a long time.
Blessings

[Dee]

I believe that Lee was fighting a "defensive war" in hopes that the "INDUSTRIALIZED CONTROLLED NORTH" would come to it's senses, and call it off. He under-estimated Lincoln's "socialist-marxist) leanings.
Lincoln proved thru his own writings, and speeches that he was not only a "rabid socialist" but, was also a bigoted racist, and had he lived, he would have purged the country of all blacks, Mexicans, and American Indians, and said as much. He actually referred to the Mexican as "mongrels" and less than human.
When I see him revered by the black race, I smile and think of how easily they have been led into believing a lie. Lincolns' own speeches "REAK" with racism directed at the very people he hated, and intended to expel from America.

[subdjoe]

Might as well give it up, Dee.  Willy for some reason all his own refuses to see that the South wasn't fighting to conquer New England, Ohio, and the other northern states.  The South should, after First Manassas, gone ahead and marched on and captured Washington and forced an end to it.  But, since the Confederacy just wanted to leave in peace, not to conquer, it missed its best chance.

The legislatures of seven states voted to leave the Union, not to conquer the rest of it.  Four other states, when Lincoln launched his war to keep the cash flowing into the federal treasury, joined with them in an attempt to rein in an out of control federal government.   

[Dee]

Indeed, Lee was teaching at West Point. When offered the command of the Northern Troops, he clearly stated that he would go home and protect Virginia (his home). He should have taken D.C. and put an end to it, but he truly was, as most all Southerners were, protecting their home. i.e. the southern states.

[williamlayton]

Wonder where the original question went? 
Blessings

[Dee]

William, your not paying very good attention. The discussion is all about your question. Lee ignored his northern flank because he didn't want to invade the north, he wanted peace. He was hoping that he could protect the south, until Lincoln came to his senses, which he did not.
 
As far as the West, it was sparcely populated, and there was not much to fight over except Indians.

[williamlayton]

Lee didn't ignore the flank---it was not under his command.
Whose command was it under?
Who was the overall commander of the Southern army---the North had one.
I am paying attention.
I think this will lead to some understanding of why a Confederacy fails.
Blessings

[Dee]

William, Lee was commander of the Southern Army. The North ended up having several until finally settling on Grant.

[williamlayton]

Lee was the commander of the army of Northern Viginia--Not the Confederate Armies of the South----which did not exhist.
Blessings

[Dee]

Now I see where your at. Ok here it is. Jefferson Davis was the "general in chief" of all Confederate armies until the last few weeks of the war, whereupon Lee finally replaced him. Davis argued with all the generals throughout the war. This was why, when Lee surrendered it was for all of the Confederacy.

[williamlayton]

I keep finding things in this war that make me wonder about the general ability in the South to do anything but stand and die----which they did quiet well.
Now you can cry about foul/they just wanted to be left to go their own way, but, should they not have thought thru this better and had some plan "B" if "A" didn't work out.
Perhaps you are correct--they just thought they would walk away.
If so--why did the form an army, supply them, put them in uniform, have emmisaries in France and England asking for assistance and aid?
Wars are not won by fighting spirit alone----it takes a plan.
The japanese fell victim to this same malady. They thought that America had no stomach for a fight and would just crumble and sue for peace. I guess they thought that is what England did--America is of the same root structure.
I don't know---I just keep wondering what they were thinking and where is the plan.
Blessings

[Dee]

William when someone comes unexpectedly into your yard, and begins assaulting you, what is your plan? I have given you, as have others, our findings in years of studying the history of the war. You may not accept the reasoning, but that doesn't make it any less true.

[williamlayton]

What I can't accept is the "unexpected"---they we obviously ready for war---I don't think you can deny that.
Blessings

[BUGEYE]

Lee should have marched on washington, Patton should have been allowed to march on moscow and Bush 1 should have marched on to bagdhad.
it's funny how one persons decision can change history.

[ironfoot]

I believe that Lee was fighting a "defensive war" in hopes that the "INDUSTRIALIZED CONTROLLED NORTH" would come to it's senses, and call it off. He under-estimated Lincoln's "socialist-marxist) leanings.
Lincoln proved thru his own writings, and speeches that he was not only a "rabid socialist" but, was also a bigoted racist, and had he lived, he would have purged the country of all blacks, Mexicans, and American Indians, and said as much. He actually referred to the Mexican as "mongrels" and less than human.
When I see him revered by the black race, I smile and think of how easily they have been led into believing a lie. Lincolns' own speeches "REAK" with racism directed at the very people he hated, and intended to expel from America.

During an age when 1/2 the country believed black people could be owned like cattle, Lincoln believed they should be free. In Lincoln's last speech he stated the right to vote should be extended to some blacks. When Booth heard that, he resolved to kill Lincoln. When the Sioux uprising in Minnesota was put down, and after quick military trials 200 Indians were condemned to hang, Lincoln pardoned all but the worst 38 offenders. Lincoln was pretty progressive for his time.

[subdjoe]

 
During an age when 1/2 the country believed black people could be owned like cattle,

The New England slave traders didn't make up half the country.

ADDED:

I'm surprised it took this long for IF to get around to using his only tool, pointing and yelling SLAVERY! 

Which, by Lincoln's own words, was not what the war was about.  His original excuse was to collect tariffs from what was a foreign country, and to force the independent states back into what was a voluntary union.

[williamlayton]

subdjoe
There is another way to look at your accuzations. It was Lincolns desire--as was it the desire of the founding fathers--that this Republic should be self-sustaining and independent of need of any other nation for it needs.
The South was obviously acting as the jews did when in the desert---looking back at Egypt and desiring to go back to the safety and confines of the mother rather than take it upon thier own backs to make a go of it alone.
Blessings

[ironfoot]

 
During an age when 1/2 the country believed black people could be owned like cattle,

The New England slave traders didn't make up half the country.
 
What is that supposed to mean?

ADDED:

I'm surprised it took this long for IF to get around to using his only tool, pointing and yelling SLAVERY! 
Well, I have a life outside of this board. What do you do when not on this board, dress up like Spock and go to Star Trek conventions? By the way, the Civil War was about slavery.

Which, by Lincoln's own words, was not what the war was about.  His original excuse was to collect tariffs from what was a foreign country, and to force the independent states back into what was a voluntary union.
 
Lincoln said it was about slavery. Read his two inaugural addresses.

[ironfoot]

Nobody is really adressing Williams question at the start of this topic.

[SouthernByGrace]

ironfoot, William's question has already been addressed and answered. It may not be to your liking, but it Has been answered. You will not troll in this forum in an effort to start more arguments. 

SBG

[bkraft]

If the South did not anticipate war, then why did they not use the established legal system? Slavery had already been up held in Dred Scott. Why did they not challenge the Supremacy Clause before the same court, in regards to the states rights issue? As far as the question of the Northern flank, it was indefensible as was most of the South. The only chance the South had was to win big and quick capture Washington cause the North to sue for peace.

[subdjoe]

If the South did not anticipate war, then why did they not use the established legal system? Slavery had already been up held in Dred Scott. Why did they not challenge the Supremacy Clause before the same court, in regards to the states rights issue? As far as the question of the Northern flank, it was indefensible as was most of the South. The only chance the South had was to win big and quick capture Washington cause the North to sue for peace.

The seven states of the deep south DID use the legal system.  Their legislatures introduced and passed bills of secession, exercising their right to withdraw from a voluntary union with other independent states. 

[BUGEYE]

ironfoot, William's question has already been addressed and answered. It may not be to your liking, but it Has been answered. You will not troll in this forum in an effort to start more arguments. 

SBG

I see that my post was deleted which happens when a forum of this type has only one mod and that mod has a dog in the fight.  the very name of this forum is argumentative, so people argue.
like the political forum, where people ARGUE about their own point of view.  one of the mods there has an exact opposite view as I do, but he allows ALL points of view.
from what I've read about this war of southern rebellion is that south carolina was itching for a fight and they dragged the other states into it to early.
if you don't want arguments, then put a label on it "southern points of view only"

[bkraft]

The "voulntary union" of which you speak had a firly ironclad pre-nup in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The State leglislatures and Judical systems would have had to have their cases heard before the U.S. Supreme Court. Which is the only body that could have ruled on the legility and the terms of their leaving. In short they did not read the fine print. South Carloina had been talking about breaking away since the Jackson administration. Plenty of time to explore the legal issues. Either they chose not, realized they couldn't win in court or they just wanted a fight.

[BUGEYE]

bKraft, well said and I agree it was South Carolinas itchy trigger finger.
taken through the normal channels I would say that it would have been resolved peacefully.

[SouthernByGrace]

ironfoot, William's question has already been addressed and answered. It may not be to your liking, but it Has been answered. You will not troll in this forum in an effort to start more arguments. 

SBG

I see that my post was deleted which happens when a forum of this type has only one mod and that mod has a dog in the fight.  the very name of this forum is argumentative, so people argue.
like the political forum, where people ARGUE about their own point of view.  one of the mods there has an exact opposite view as I do, but he allows ALL points of view.
from what I've read about this war of southern rebellion is that south carolina was itching for a fight and they dragged the other states into it to early.
if you don't want arguments, then put a label on it "southern points of view only"

BUGEYE, my warning to ironfoot had nothing to do with you. I'm quite sure he doesn't need you to speak for him. My comment about trolling includes you and everybody who posts in this forum. Trolling to incite unnecessary anger from another member in this forum will NOT be tolerated. Not from ironfoot, or you, or anybody. PERIOD. If you have a problem with that we will go to Graybeard with it and let him tell you his OWN ruling on trolling. If you want to discuss the topics in this forum in an intelligent, adult manner, have at it. I don't mind a good argument when it's productive (i.e., you can prove your stand on a certain topic, but NOT just because you don't believe what the other person said.) If the moderator(s) in the political forum allow it, that's them. Go there and knock yourself out. You will not do it here.  This is not grade school. Act like an adult.

You will NOT trash another member in open forum. That goes for everybody. If you have a problem with somebody, you take it to them via Private Message, including ME. Or you come to me with it and I can take a look at the situation. There are only 2 people in this forum who have ever come to me with a problem and not tie up somebody's thread. You don't deal with it in open forum. It's too disruptive and disrespectful of the other members. I let most things slide that I should do something about because some of it is just joking around, but when it gets out of hand and so far off topic that nobody knows what the topic is anymore, it's time to do something about it. You can have any point of view you want. You can express it however you want, EXCEPT to trash the other person!!

As far as me having a dog in this fight? Yes I do. Do you? If not, what are you doing here, if not to cause trouble? Just because I am a descendant of a Confederate soldier does not mean I agree with everything the Confederacy did. It also doesn't mean I agree with everything posted here by everyone else who is a Confederate descendant, either. I've had my fair share of disagreements with them, as well. It does mean that I have a totally different perspective than Northerners, even those who now live in the South, because the things discussed in this forum happened HERE, in the South. Southerners were far more affected by the war than those in the North, especially economically. That is a documented fact. To say that the South "got what it deserved," or "the Southerners brought it on themselves," is irresponsible jibberish on the part of the person saying it, because they don't know the facts in the matter. They do have strong opinions, but based on what? That's not the same as being able to read the journals left by your ancestors to know what it was Really like, and not have the trash in the textbooks crammed down your throat for 150 years.

To have you and William, and others to say that my ancestors (civilian women and children) "got what they deserved" or "brought it on themselves" by being starved to death, or having all their farming tools taken, preventing them from growing basic food, or seeing their businesses and homes burned to the ground and their valuables stolen by Northern soldiers and nothing being done about it, and that my ancestors (Confederate soldiers) who fought to protect their families, homes, and businesses, fought to protect the rights given and promised to them by the Founding fathers, "got what they deserved", or "brought it on themselves"? You have no idea what you're saying, or how it becomes a very hard slap in the face to everything Southerners knew about why the War was being fought.

As far as the title of this forum, I had nothing to do with naming it. I personally prefer the War for Southern Independence over the War of Northern Aggression. You would almost have to be Southern to know and understand why it was named that in the first place.     

So if you want to fight like cats and dogs, go to another forum that allows it. If you want to discuss the topics in this forum with civility and respect, and provide your opinions or your stand on the research you've done, this is the place to be. Argue your points, YES. But not to the point where you trash the other person and his beliefs.
If you have a problem with that, don't let the door hit you on the way out. I wish you nothing but the best.


SouthernByGrace

DEO VINDICE

[BUGEYE]

SBG,  I have never said that the south "got what they deserved" as you imply, so you are trashing me.
as far as textbook trash that has been crammed down our throats, that''s your opinion with nothing to back it except books by southerners. so you are being argumentative.
all of the books written after the war were slanted, depending on where the author was from.
the title of the forum probably causes yankees to get their dander up, which is understandable since south carolina started the war.  fort sumter had as much right to be there as, say, fort benning here in georgia or fort leavenworth in kansas.  the unfinished fort was being resupplied by an UNARMED ship which was fired upon, an unquestionable act of war.

[SouthernByGrace]

BUGEYE, it is most certainly NOT my opinion about the trash in textbooks being crammed down our throats. It is a Fact, based on GOVERNMENT sources from that time, that I get MY information from, NOT "books by Southerners".

You asked me a question in another thread and I answered you. What "book by a Southerner" did that answer come from? Oh yeah, The Constitution of The United States, written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Both Southerners.  The second part of the answer comes from the writings of Jefferson, himself. You can read my answer to your question here... http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/index.php/topic,238511.60.html[/color]  , you can find it on Reply # 80.

I use primarily Government sources like The Library of Congress (www.loc.gov), The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion (Letters, Journals, Battle Reports, Field Orders, and Presidential Orders - from Both sides), etc. In the event I DO use a book (written by ANYBODY) I use the sources cited in that book or publication, and I research that source for myself, NOT opinion of any kind, but FACT. If I give my opinion on here, I will tell you it's my opinion, and how I came to form it.

You really need to go back and learn your TRUE history if you think South Carolina "started the War."    Since when do you think an Official U.S. Military ship, traveling to a fort on the open sea would ever travel unarmed? HaHaHaHa Fort Sumter was no different than any fort in the 13 Colonies during the Revolutionary War (They were owned by Great Britain, ya know). The 13 Colonies SECEDED from Great Britain and those forts became property of the United States. When the Southern States SECEDED, the forts within the boundaries of The Confederate States became her property in the exact same way.


SBG

[BUGEYE]

I just googled "star of the west" and according to the web, she was UNARMED.
also fort sumter was owned by THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and garrisoned by U.S. troops.
you can saved your condescending laugh, I'm sure she had SOME armament for self defense but she was not a warship, she was a SUPPLY ship. kinda like modern war and supply ships.
also south carolina troops were intimidating fort moultrie which was an undefendable fort so that garrison, in fear of their lives went to fort sumter for safety reasons and SC commanders called that an act of war by the north. wrong, SC troops were keeping their guns trained on moultrie troops.
I'd move to.  south carolina was looking for any reason to start the war, so they invented reasons.
kinda like Bush in iraq.
like I said, southern authors have a southern slant and northern authors have a northern slant.
but everything I have read points to SC starting the war.

[SouthernByGrace]

I just googled "star of the west" and according to the web, she was UNARMED.
also fort sumter was owned by THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and garrisoned by U.S. troops.
you can saved your condescending laugh, I'm sure she had SOME armament for self defense but she was not a warship, she was a SUPPLY ship. kinda like modern war and supply ships.
also south carolina troops were intimidating fort moultrie which was an undefendable fort so that garrison, in fear of their lives went to fort sumter for safety reasons and SC commanders called that an act of war by the north. wrong, SC troops were keeping their guns trained on moultrie troops.
I'd move to.  south carolina was looking for any reason to start the war, so they invented reasons.
kinda like Bush in iraq.
like I said, southern authors have a southern slant and northern authors have a northern slant.but everything I have read points to SC starting the war.

SO? The forts in 1776 were owned by King George and were garrisoned by British troops... everybody here was a British citizen. What part of ITS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR do you not understand?



Like I said, you need to really dig deeper and learn some TRUE history.



I couldn't agree more. What part of I DON'T USE THESE TYPE SOURCES do you not understand?

BUGEYE, why don't you go to some of the Official Sources I've mentioned and learn some of this for yourself. This is from the people who were There... not from people that weren't even born when it took place.SBG