Submit your comments on this article |
Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
VDH: Sherman in Gaza |
2014-08-24 |
![]() |
Posted by:Frank G |
#5 No one could write a compelling historical narrative as Shelby Foote could. As an almost retired professional Historian I should dismiss him for his lack of citations/bibliography. I can't. This writer spent decades writing his 3 vol. opus. And each word rings true... |
Posted by: borgboy 2014-08-24 22:42 |
#4 The North giving up is very accurate James. Many in the North were sure it would all be over in a matter of a few months. Ever the adept politician and statesman, Lincoln pulled a rabbit out of his hat with the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863. Davis was no match for Lincoln, either in political acumen or leadership. Had the husband of Mary Anna Custis been fully in charge, outcomes might have gone differently. |
Posted by: Besoeker 2014-08-24 15:53 |
#3 I'm not quite so sure, Besoeker. I'm hardly a Civil War expert, but it seemed as though it was fairly close--not so much that the South close to winning but that the North was close to giving up. As VDH noted, if Lincoln had lost the election the result might have been a de-facto separation: an effective victory for the South. And, of course, if the South hadn't actually started shooting, it isn't obvious that the North would have started, and once again the result might have been a de-facto separation. |
Posted by: James 2014-08-24 15:15 |
#2 love the graphic |
Posted by: 3dc 2014-08-24 13:50 |
#1 Civil War historian the late Shelby Foote wrote that the South was destined to lose the war from the beginning, "they never had a snowball's chance in hell." There was no lack of elan, capable leadership, dedication, or bravery in the South. Nor was there a lack of knowledgeable woodsmen or men trained in fieldcraft, or an excess of haute, mounted aristocrats. As in most wars and conflicts, victory eludes the poorly armed and supplied force. Supply and logistics are everything. |
Posted by: Besoeker 2014-08-24 13:45 |